On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:22:18AM +0200, Stephan Müller wrote: > Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 23:08:16 CEST schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > > Hi Theodore, > > > > I've been trying to take the best features and suggestions from your > > proposal and integrating them into /dev/random already. Things that > > I've chosen not take is basically because I disbelieve that the Jitter > > RNG is valid. And that's mostly becuase I trust Peter Anvin (who has > > access to Intel chip architects, who has expressed unease) more than > > you. (No hard feelings). > > I am unsure why you always point to the Jitter RNG. This is one noise source > to keep or to remove -- at least it provides more data during early boot than > any other noise source we currently have. > > In the email [1] I have expressed the core concerns I see -- none of them > address the need to keep the Jitter RNG as one noise source. To address those, > a very deep dive into random.c needs to be made. > > Such deep dive has the potential to be disruptive. Therefore, doesn't it make > more sense to have such conceptual changes rather covered in a separate > implementation? No, it makes more sense to send individual patches addressing your concerns to the existing random driver. Again, that's how kernel development has always worked. thanks, greg k-h
