On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:15:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies: > > > > Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of > > "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set strictly isn't about > > crypto at all; the crypto subsystem is in the unlucky position > > to just depend on a good entropy source. > > > > Greg claims that Linux (kernel) isn't about choice, which is clearly > > wrong. > > I think there's a small misunderstanding here, my understanding is > that for quite a while, the possibilities offered by the various > random subsystems or their proposed derivative used to range from > "you have to choose between a fast system that may be vulnerable > to some attacks, a system that might not be vulnerable to certain > attacks but might not always boot, or a slow system not vulnerable > to certain attacks". Greg's point seems to be that if we add an > option, it means it's yet another tradeoff between these possibilities > and that someone will still not be happy at the end of the chain. If > the proposed solution covers everything at once (performance, > reliability, unpredictability), then there probably is no more reason > for keeping alternate solutions at all, hence there's no need to give > the user the choice between multiple options when only one is known > to always be valid. At least that's how I see it and it makes sense > to me. Thanks for spelling it out in much more detail than I was willing to :) thanks, greg k-h
