Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 22:41:22 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To:     Olivia Mackall <olivia@selenic.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Lin Jinhan <troy.lin@rock-chips.com>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Rockchip SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC support" 
        <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] hwrng: add Rockchip SoC hwrng driver
Message-ID: <Y45lguC4ZiniiWS/@zx2c4.com>
References: <20221128184718.1963353-1-aurelien@aurel32.net>
 <20221128184718.1963353-3-aurelien@aurel32.net>
 <Y43uiVo41vljLsZM@zx2c4.com>
 <Y45j/hd2MnnXzcAo@aurel32.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y45j/hd2MnnXzcAo@aurel32.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Aurelien,

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 10:34:54PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Well I am not sure it really matters. 90% is actually conservative, it's
> the worst case I have seen, rounded down. However I often get much
> better quality, see for instance the following run:
> 
> | Copyright (c) 2004 by Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> | This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> | 
> | rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> | rngtest: entropy source drained
> | rngtest: bits received from input: 16777216
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 819
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 19
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2(2001-10-10) Monobit: 17
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2(2001-10-10) Poker: 0
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2(2001-10-10) Runs: 2
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2(2001-10-10) Long run: 2
> | rngtest: FIPS 140-2(2001-10-10) Continuous run: 0
> | rngtest: input channel speed: (min=132.138; avg=137.848; max=147.308)Kibits/s
> | rngtest: FIPS tests speed: (min=16.924; avg=20.272; max=20.823)Mibits/s
> | rngtest: Program run time: 119647459 microseconds
> 
> Does the exact value has an importance there? I thought it was just
> important to not overestimate the quality.

That's the right principle. I just worry about estimating it like that
from looking at the output, rather than being derived from some
knowledge about the hardware. Maybe 50% (quality=512) is more
reasonable, so that it collects two bits for every one?

Jason