Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E271CC433EF for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 00:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233979AbhLBA3j (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2021 19:29:39 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43220 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232372AbhLBA3j (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2021 19:29:39 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3E0C061574; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:26:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 71so25295951pgb.4; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:26:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=sv23TKvRzZPWht8CGSZ7AaQzPSxfhV6p2hx6hoQB8RA=; b=B/7CH6WFlj8Q5RNgrAfZqS62Li1OnmWsNztgZSDN3/k6O6Y8OMbfSWSjWY1qrbbmpD Y882GtTKA436La/dCX0MXxQSY7pEhdijgj0gPvIJC8aKNvK6hMC7ovkk8p0okDoIMX3t ipLkOVP+tYMC2qXQKZO/44f64PsJIWBTC1ChXNPO+4m/1S7cIAyxro5f3Q/gFYruT6O8 PY0MCDY8Xe/ZPEv8IjVYmvc+wYo/U3yIdydIVuXx0pAzCTQDwYRxaKnW54P+RTL/EAIf c8O23h+7AcQhZcPcyiHbpoQYFU/PZ2chqW7spKzyoQXSs1pun8Nka8hUDSnHxNhSvsDJ Q01g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sv23TKvRzZPWht8CGSZ7AaQzPSxfhV6p2hx6hoQB8RA=; b=cN1s0FPGgpdossznRbZ95+Mz0O/MSGNX3QAkE5kKfv5/Mo9MCylr26ujqe3vWlKwJ4 toAHynxfM6Z1JisdLGY7Ontpa/RvsudgQ0be4XCGoEmiotQIihQncvLAhqXPFyfEFnxU 6UhPiRuMKbdpRlxZ0X1N91QRoxtmnhqzsnRfRWKT4TApOJ4HwnHDqiwQ0hd4nbc32plu UAQlNjC9Vo24VGuLFaWRdeDEqdmiLEBOpCpPkdF3i+EBlaH+ndVbrf5AKLb8sx7+MGnM F3XvFIrqmCXQft0dlAKHtK27pliUMafnB9C1DjxSRDfAQzpU0xoiUnda5W0P3QJ+8bCl DfUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533gvQWb/dmRD6mGw1U+FvJMn+TNI7mLtoz6TgVNwgNeho07oDgJ Mwv9Kj+lvnwdAVuILY6lpZh98jeU+D6avZtsIZ8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxey/5t7weQ8d0mFE0yXPl7NJpEfgcpgxxuty7D+wcx4F3paTHNjatvKNNty79uRcDsauN4SfjZr8Nt4drMCy0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1312:b0:4a4:e341:213a with SMTP id j18-20020a056a00131200b004a4e341213amr9397893pfu.57.1638404777476; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:26:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2036923.9o76ZdvQCi@positron.chronox.de> <22137816.pfsBpAd9cS@tauon.chronox.de> <9311513.S0ZZtNTvxh@tauon.chronox.de> <49d6091e571e24efff7bc4dc70c4c62628eb0782.camel@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: noloader@gmail.com From: Jeffrey Walton Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 19:24:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v43 01/15] Linux Random Number Generator To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: Simo Sorce , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephan Mueller , Tso Ted , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Willy Tarreau , Nicolai Stange , LKML , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Alexander E. Patrakov" , "Ahmed S. Darwish" , Matthew Garrett , Vito Caputo , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , Ray Strode , William Jon McCann , zhangjs , Andy Lutomirski , Florian Weimer , Lennart Poettering , Peter Matthias , Eric Biggers , Marcelo Henrique Cerri , Neil Horman , Randy Dunlap , Julia Lawall , Dan Carpenter , Andy Lavr , Petr Tesarik , John Haxby , Alexander Lobakin , Jirka Hladky Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:19 PM Simo Sorce wrote: > > that much it is, and it is a required one. However having worked a lot > > on this I can tell you there is actually real cryptographic value in > > the requirements FIPS introduced over the years > > Well I think most of the requirements are sane practices, hopefully > > controversial stuff will be minimal. > > I happen to think quite a few of the requirements are actually good > > ideas to implement to improve the guarantees of randomness > > If you think there are good ways to improve the RNG, of course send > patches for this, justifying why, taking into account recent research > into the topic you wish to patch, etc. Don't write, "because FIPS"; > instead argue rationale for each patch. And if you _do_ feel the need > to appeal to authority, perhaps links to the various eprint papers you > consulted would be worthwhile. Preferably you're able to do this in a > small, incremental way, with small standalone patchsets, instead of > gigantic series. I may be parsing things incorrectly, but you seem to be rejecting the NIST requirements, and then positioning your personal opinion as superior. It sounds like one authority is being replaced by another. Perhaps I am missing something. I am also guessing you've never read the relevant NIST documents. The documents state the security goals and provide the steps to achieve them in an implementation. Jeff