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:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 21:03:07 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>,
        Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] mm: add VM_DROPPABLE for designating always
 lazily freeable mappings
Message-ID: <Y7SJ+/axonTK0Fir@zx2c4.com>
References: <20230101162910.710293-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <20230101162910.710293-3-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <Y7QIg/hAIk7eZE42@gmail.com>
 <CALCETrWdw5kxrtr4M7AkKYDOJEE1cU1wENWgmgOxn0rEJz4y3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wg_6Uhkjy12Vq_hN6rQqGRP2nE15rkgiAo6Qay5aOeigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y7SDgtXayQCy6xT6@zx2c4.com>
 <CAHk-=whQdWFw+0eGttxsWBHZg1+uh=0MhxXYtvJGX4t9P1MgNw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whQdWFw+0eGttxsWBHZg1+uh=0MhxXYtvJGX4t9P1MgNw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Linus,

On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 11:54:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So 99% of the time, the solution really is just "getrandom()",
> generally with the usual buffering ("read more than you need, so that
> you don't do it all the time").\

That buffering cannot be done safely currently -- VM forks, reseeding
semantics, and so forth. Again, discussed in the cover letter of the
patch if you'd like to engage with those ideas.

> just using your own rng in user space entirely.

This is the thing that isn't quite safe.

> Let me guess: the people you talked to who were excited about this are
> mainly just library people?

No, actually. Mainly people deploying production network-facing things
that need a lot of randomness often. e.g. CBC nonces in TLS, or random
sequence numbers in UDP-based protocols.

> So when you say that this isn't about micro-optimizations, I really
> say "humbug". It's *clearly* about micro-optimization of an area that
> very few people care about, since the alternative is just our existing
> "getrandom()" that is not at all horribly slow.

The alternative is what people currently do, which is attempt to
implement a userspace RNG, which cannot be done safely. Again, -->
cover letter.

> Because the people who actually *use* the random numbers and are *so*
> performance-critical about them already have their own per-thread
> buffers or what-not

...which are not safe.

Anyway, if you're NACK'ing the whole getrandom() vDSO project, just
please outright say so, so I don't spend another 14 revisions in vain.

Jason