Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201130151231.GA24862@lst.de> <CAHmME9p4vFGWh7+CKF4f3dw5r+ru5PVG0-vP77JowX8sPhin1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201130165339.GE5364@mit.edu> <CAHmME9pksS8ec17RAwCNJimt4B0xZgd3qYHUPnaT4Bj4CF7n0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201218132519.kj3nz7swsx7vvlr5@valinor.lan> <20201223132851.55d19271@blackhole.lan>
 <20201223151014.57caf98b@ezekiel.suse.cz> <CAHmME9ooV1HRGO4bLsNKqv1EjDsUYsM6TcMbmEL=4CejTB+1ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e61c46f2ded9d8676c77beb40c78200df0ada928.camel@chronox.de>
In-Reply-To: <e61c46f2ded9d8676c77beb40c78200df0ada928.camel@chronox.de>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:33:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9p266FpLENSH+HvZ_G_uEM8O_L-MDDTMRBxFms7zqM5tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: drivers/char/random.c needs a (new) maintainer
To:     Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Cc:     Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>, Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>,
        Marcelo Henrique Cerri <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@gmail.com>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
        Vito Caputo <vcaputo@pengaru.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ray Strode <rstrode@redhat.com>,
        William Jon McCann <mccann@jhu.edu>,
        zhangjs <zachary@baishancloud.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>,
        Peter Matthias <matthias.peter@bsi.bund.de>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        And y Lavr <andy.lavr@gmail.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, simo@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 4:26 PM Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 23.12.2020 um 15:32 +0100 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
> >
> > I would, however, be interested in a keccak-based construction. But
> > just using the keccak permutation does not automatically make it
> > "SHA-3", so we're back at the same issue again. FIPS is simply not
> > interesting for our requirements.
>
> Using non-assessed cryptography? Sounds dangerous to me even though it may be
> based on some well-known construction.

"assessed" is not necessarily the same as FIPS. Don't conflate the
two. I don't appreciate that kind of dishonest argumentation.

And new constructions that I'm interested in would be formally
verified (like the other crypto work I've done) with review and buy-in
from the cryptographic community, both engineering and academic. I
have no interest in submitting "non-assessed" things developed in a
vacuum, and I'm displeased with your attempting to make that
characterization.

Similarly, any other new design proposed I would expect a similar
amount of rigor. The current RNG is admittedly a bit of a mess, but at
least it's a design that's evolved. Something that's "revolutionary",
rather than evolutionary, needs considerably more argumentation.

So, please, don't strawman this into the "non-assessed" rhetoric.