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;
From:   Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= <smueller@chronox.de>
To:     Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>, Torsten Duwe <duwe@suse.de>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] crypto: DRBG - improve 'nopr' reseeding
Date:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:43:42 +0200
Message-ID: <2466958.tJBOlap2oN@positron.chronox.de>
In-Reply-To: <87zgqurhcj.fsf@suse.de>
References: <20211025092525.12805-1-nstange@suse.de> <2120606.3HGXcN3vsr@positron.chronox.de> <87zgqurhcj.fsf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

Am Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021, 10:40:12 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange:

Hi Nicolai,

> Hi Stephan,
>=20
> first of all, many thanks for your prompt review!
>=20
> Stephan M=FCller <smueller@chronox.de> writes:
> > Am Montag, 25. Oktober 2021, 11:25:19 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange:
> >> - Replace the asynchronous random_ready_callback based DRBG reseeding
> >>=20
> >>   logic with a synchronous solution leveraging rng_is_initialized().
> >=20
> > Could you please help me why replacing an async method with a sync meth=
od
> > is helpful? Which problems do you see with the async method that are
> > alleviated with the swtich to the sync method? In general, an async
> > method is more powerful, though it requires a bit more code.
>=20
> There is no problem with the async method (*), I just don't see any
> advantage over the less complex approach of doing all reseeding
> work synchronously from drbg_generate().
>=20
> Before the change, there had been two sites taking care of reseeding:
> the drbg_async_seed() work handler scheduled from the
> random_ready_callback and drbg_generate().
>=20
> After the change, all reseeding is handled at a single place only, namely
> drbg_generate(), which, in my opinion, makes it easier to reason about.
> In particular, in preparation for patch 6/6 from this series introducing
> yet another condition for triggering a reseed...

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Ciao
Stephan
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Nicolai
>=20
> (*) Except for that a wait_for_random_bytes() issued by DRBG users won't
>     give any guarantees with respect to a subsequent drbg_generate()
>     operation, c.f. my other mail in reply to your review on 3/6 I'm
>     about to write in a second. As of now, there aren't any DRBG users
>     invoking wait_for_random_bytes(), but one might perhaps consider
>     changing that in the future.
>=20
> >>   This
> >>   move simplifies the code IMO and, as a side-effect, would enable DRBG
> >>   users to rely on wait_for_random_bytes() to sync properly with
> >>   drbg_generate(), if desired. Implemented by patches 1-5/6.
> >>=20
> >> - Make the 'nopr' DRBGs to reseed themselves every 5min from
> >>=20
> >>   get_random_bytes(). This achieves at least kind of a partial predict=
ion
> >>   resistance over the time domain at almost no extra cost. Implemented
> >>   by patch 6/6, the preceding patches in this series are a prerequisite
> >>   for this.


Ciao
Stephan