On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 03:54:19PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> I applied a patch that did exactly that (109b623629), and then reverted
> it (b920ecc82) shortly thereafter because add_device_randomness() is
> a rather slow function and FDTs can get large. I'd like to see someone
> do a reasonable analysis on the cost of using an FDT for randomness
> before I reapply a patch doing something similar. An awful lot of the
> FDT data is not very random, but there are certainly portions of it that
> are appropriate for the random pool.
I read through the original thread from Tim Bird and FWIW I agree with
the assessment that passing the FDT through MD5 first is a good
approach.
Thinking into the future, I'd expect to see similar variable data in
DT on servers as we see in DMI, including:
- Vendor serial number for the HW, manufacturing date, model number,
and HW UUID
- Serial numbers and vendor part numbers for DIMMS
- MAC addresses for all the ethernet
- OEM specific data
At worst a 'choosen/linux,no-dt-random = 1' value in the DT to disable
it would solve the problem for those in embedded that care about
microseconds during booting.
Regards,
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
