Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <202204051016.4E9DD89@keescook>
References: <CAHmME9otYi4pCzZwSGnK40dp1QMRVPxp+DBysVuLXUKkXinAxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220403204036.1269562-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <202204041144.96FC64A8@keescook>
 <Ykt1cj0wPKEsHL2q@zx2c4.com> <202204041953.D7E0BA15@keescook>
 <CAHmME9rC-pmi3K=w06-bOsHP5=tPv9CS51hr69P1C5tmvHf_mA@mail.gmail.com> <202204051016.4E9DD89@keescook>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 19:40:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pV4SdoSyMq4kax3w3Vu1nPxjO3faCZKq8d0RDo8t731g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gcc-plugins: latent_entropy: use /dev/urandom
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Kees,

On 4/5/22, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> v3 uses a different check for the -f option, though? Isn't that
> preferred over the v2 method?

Based on the code comments, I assume this is gcc upstream's intended
method. It strikes me as worse, though, because that variable, when
it's not set to -1, is set to: `local_tick = (unsigned) tv.tv_sec *
1000 + tv.tv_usec / 1000;` which is on occasion unlucky and hits -1
too. But maybe that's a bug in gcc that should be fixed instead? I
don't know really. But anyway that's why I'm /also/ more into that
aspect of v2.

> Also, I did some quick benchmarking, and any difference in runtime is
> completely lost in the noise, so that's good.

Oh good to hear. So my 2k buffer is fine then.

Jason