Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACXcFm=-E_wnDdRPztKJwDo8hvt6ENf84D90iFUXReuw2s0kuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACXcFm=-E_wnDdRPztKJwDo8hvt6ENf84D90iFUXReuw2s0kuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Tom Mitchell <mitch@niftyegg.com>
Date:   Sun, 3 Oct 2021 22:33:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAMy4UTgnpO9dv3hLzB_DWYfC-OAx6SYactSjL_J8oDJ76XfhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] [RFC] random: add new pseudorandom number generator
To:     Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cryptography <cryptography@metzdowd.com>,
        "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:31 AM Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a PRNG that I want to use within the Linux random(4) driver. It
> looks remarkably strong to me, but analysis from others is needed.

How do you plan to get this into the Linux community for testing?
In a cluster of machines a PRNG kernel update and verification process
seems tedious and difficult to tidy up after a problem is found or
suspected.

First benchmark it.
If it slows the system down without advantage it will not be welcome
except as an optional service and device.
Spinlocks ... hmmm... now I need to look at how the kernel can ignore
or not need them?


-- 

          T o m    M i t c h e l l  (on NiftyEgg[.]com )