Am Montag, 3. August 2020, 16:48:02 CEST schrieb Elena Petrova: Hi Elena, > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 08:27, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > lock_sock() would solve the former. I'm not sure what should be done > > > about > > > rng_recvmsg(). It apparently relies on the crypto_rng doing its own > > > locking, but maybe it should just use lock_sock() too. > > > > The lock_sock is only needed if you're doing testing. What I'd > > prefer is to have a completely different code-path for testing. > > sendmsg is used for "Additional Data" input, and unlike entropy, it > could be useful outside of testing. But if you confirm it's not > useful, then yes, I can decouple the testing parts. Nobody has requested it for now - so why not only compiling it when the DRBG test config value is set? If for some reason there is a request to allow setting the additional data from user space, we may simply take the ifdef away. My approach is to have only interfaces into the kernel that are truly requested and needed. Ciao Stephan
