Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Nadia Heninger <nadiah@cs.ucsd.edu>,
        Thomas Ristenpart <ristenpart@cornell.edu>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] random: implement getrandom() in vDSO
References: <YuXLlUZ8EzvZB43U@zx2c4.com>
        <20220731013125.2103601-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Mon, 01 Aug 2022 10:48:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220731013125.2103601-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> (Jason A. Donenfeld's
        message of "Sun, 31 Jul 2022 03:31:25 +0200")
Message-ID: <871qu0qri6.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

* Jason A. Donenfeld:

> API-wise, vDSO getrandom has a pair of functions:
>
>   ssize_t getrandom(void *state, void *buffer, size_t len, unsigned int flags);
>   void *getrandom_alloc([inout] size_t *num, [out] size_t *size_per_each);
>
> In the first function, the return value and the latter 3 arguments are
> the same as ordinary getrandom(), while the first argument is a pointer
> to some state allocated with getrandom_alloc(). getrandom_alloc() takes
> the desired number of states, and returns an array of states, the number
> actually allocated, and the size in bytes of each one, enabling a libc
> to use one per thread. We very intentionally do *not* leave state
> allocation up to the caller. There are too many weird things that can go
> wrong, and it's important that vDSO does not provide too generic of a
> mechanism. It's not going to store its state in just any old memory
> address. It'll do it only in ones it allocates.

I still don't see why this couldn't be per-thread state (if you handle
fork generations somehow).

I also think it makes sense to introduce batching for the system call
implementation first, and tie that to the vDSO acceleration.  I expect a
large part of the benefit comes from the batching, not the system call
avoidance.

Thanks,
Florian