mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: jitterentropy: `jent_mod_init()` takes 17 ms
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:45:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23252091.ssLaC8jLEa@tauon.chronox.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a422b262-3923-0d29-1a11-3498724a98ad@molgen.mpg.de>

Am Dienstag, 10. November 2020, 10:37:02 CET schrieb Paul Menzel:

Hi Paul,

> Dear Stephan,
> 
> 
> Thank you for the quick reply.
> 
> Am 10.11.20 um 10:25 schrieb Stephan Mueller:
> > Am Montag, 9. November 2020, 20:31:02 CET schrieb Paul Menzel:
> >> By mistake I built `XFRM_ESP` into the Linux kernel, resulting in
> >> 
> >>       CONFIG_CRYPTO_SEQIV=y
> >>       CONFIG_CRYPTO_ECHAINIV=y
> >> 
> >> and also the Jitterentropy RNG to be built in.
> >> 
> >>       CRYPTO_JITTERENTROPY=y
> >> 
> >> So, on the Asus F2A85-M PRO starting Linux 4.10-rc3 with
> >> `initcall_debug`, the init method is run unconditionally, and it takes
> >> 17.5 ms, which is over ten percent of the overall 900 ms the Linux
> > 
> > Hm, 17.5 / 900 = 2%, or am I missing something?
> 
> Indeed, that is embarrassing. My bad.
> 
> >> kernel needs until loading the init process.
> >> 
> >>       [    0.300544] calling  jent_mod_init+0x0/0x2c @ 1
> >>       [    0.318438] initcall jent_mod_init+0x0/0x2c returned 0 after
> >>       17471 usecs
> >> 
> >> Looking at the output of systemd-bootchart, it looks like, that this
> >> indeed delayed the boot a little, as the other init methods seem to be
> >> ordered after it.
> >> 
> >> I am now building it as a module, but am wondering if the time can be
> >> reduced to below ten milliseconds.
> > 
> > What you see is the test whether the Jitter RNG has a proper noise source.
> > The function jent_entropy_init() is the cause of the operation. It
> > performs 1024 times a test to validate the appropriateness of the noise
> > source. You can adjust that with the TESTLOOPCOUNT in this function. But
> > I am not sure adjusting is a wise course of action.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why 1024 and not, for example, 128 or 2048? Is there
> some statistics behind it?

See [1] section 4.3 bullet 4 is the culprit. The startup test includes the 
referenced test logic.

[1] https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-90B.pdf
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Paul


Ciao
Stephan



      reply	other threads:[~2020-11-10  9:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-09 19:31 Paul Menzel
2020-11-10  9:25 ` Stephan Mueller
2020-11-10  9:37   ` Paul Menzel
2020-11-10  9:45     ` Stephan Mueller [this message]

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=23252091.ssLaC8jLEa@tauon.chronox.de \
    --to=smueller@chronox.de \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
    /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®