From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: 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>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Subject: Re: [Security] [PATCH] proc: avoid information leaks to non-privileged processes
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905041646240.4983@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905041514350.4983@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Quite frankly, the way "get_random_bytes()" works now (it does a _full_
> sha thing every time), I think it's insane overkill. But I do have to
> admit that our current "get_random_int()" is insane _underkill_.
Actually, I don't think "get_random_int()" is underkill per se (it does
that half md4 transform to try to hide the source of the data), but the
data itself is simply not modified at all, and the buffers aren't updated
in between rounds.
In fact "secure_ip_id()" (which it uses) explicityl does that private
hash[] array so that the mixing that "half_md4_transform()" does do will
_not_ be saved for the next round - so the next round will always start
from the same keyptr "secret" state.
I think.
If that wasn't the case, and we actually kept mixing up the end result
back into the next iteration, I suspect the current "get_random_int()"
wouldn't be _nearly_ as bad as it is now.
Or maybe I'm missing some part of the transform, and we do mix the values
back as we do that "get_random_int()". I just don't see it. And if I'm
right, then I think _that_ is the real weakness of our current
get_random_int().
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-05 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-04 18:51 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 [this message]
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
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=alpine.LFD.2.01.0905041646240.4983@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--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 \
/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
Powered by JetHome