From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, Jake Edge <jake@lwn.net>,
security@kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] random: make get_random_int() more random
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:24:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090506212405.GB4861@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090506211020.GE31071@waste.org>
* Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:51:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Linus's patch is a marked improvement, and it is really what we need
> > here mostly.
>
> No one's arguing that it isn't an improvement. But -15 years of
> research- points to MD4 (let alone **half**MD4) being
> insufficient. To counter that, two non-cryptanalysts have
> presented nothing beyond "it seems strong enough to me" and "it
> passes a meaningless test". Pardon me if I'm not satisfied by
> that.
So is it your point that mixing the cycle counter with a bad hash
function is not sufficient? Not sufficient in precisely what threat
model and against what attack vector? I'd like to hear specifics.
The URLs pasted in this thread were inapposite - they were using
information leaks from privileged contexts. If you have relevant
URLs then please share them.
Are you worried about an attacker being able to run analysis code
locally, trigger get_random_int() and observe its results, and then
start a privileged context and know its address space layout?
I can tell you with near certainty that if we mix in the cycle
counter (and those other task local and call local details) that
then this attack vector is not practical on x86, at all.
( This particular attack would probably not be feasible even if we
used rot13 as the hash plus the cycle counter and the other values
- although i certainly feel more confident about this argument
with half-md4 in place as the hash. )
> > We cannot afford true physical randomness (it's too expensive to
> > get and not all hw has it), and even a 'good' PRNG is pretty
> > expensive.
>
> And what of my suggestion (multiple times now) to replace halfMD4
> with SHA1? Or AES. Or any cryptographic primitive that's not known
> to be completely worthless?
They are all rather expensive, while the existing usage pattern for
get_random_int() is really: "i want some randomness but also want it
to be fast".
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-06 21:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-04 18:51 [PATCH] proc: avoid information leaks to non-privileged processes Jake Edge
2009-05-04 19:00 ` [Security] " Linus Torvalds
2009-05-04 19:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-05-04 20:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-05-04 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-04 23:26 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-05-04 23:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-05 7:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-05-05 15:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-05 15:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-05 16:18 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-05 16:10 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-05 5:50 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-05 6:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-05 8:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-05-05 19:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-05 20:22 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-05 21:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-05-06 10:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 10:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 16:25 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-06 16:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-06 17:57 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-07 0:50 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-07 15:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-07 18:14 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-07 18:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-07 18:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-07 19:24 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-07 15:16 ` Florian Weimer
2009-05-07 16:55 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-07 17:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 18:42 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-06 20:09 ` [patch] random: make get_random_int() more random Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 20:41 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-06 20:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 21:10 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-06 21:24 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-05-14 22:47 ` Jake Edge
2009-05-14 22:55 ` [Security] " Linus Torvalds
2009-05-15 13:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-15 15:10 ` Jake Edge
2009-05-16 10:00 ` Willy Tarreau
2009-05-16 10:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-16 12:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-05-16 14:00 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-16 14:28 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-16 14:57 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-05-16 15:09 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-05-16 14:32 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-16 13:58 ` Willy Tarreau
2009-05-16 15:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-16 15:47 ` Willy Tarreau
2009-05-16 15:54 ` Oliver Neukum
2009-05-16 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-16 16:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-15 1:16 ` Américo Wang
2009-05-06 20:25 ` [Security] [PATCH] proc: avoid information leaks to non-privileged processes Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 20:52 ` Matt Mackall
2009-05-05 8:58 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090506212405.GB4861@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=jake@lwn.net \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=security@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®