On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:09:05AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 07:55 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 07:42:02AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > > Am Montag, 22. November 2021, 07:02:14 CET schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> > >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:34:43AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > > > > Am Sonntag, 21. November 2021, 23:42:33 CET schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Stephan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've posted it again, and yet I still believe this is not the
> > > > > > correct design or direction. I do not think the explicit goal of
> > > > > > extended configurability ("flexibility") or the explicit goal of being
> > > > > > FIPS compatible represent good directions, and I think this introduces
> > > > > > new problems rather than solving any existing ones.
> > > > >
> > > > > The members from the Linux distributions that are on copy on this may tell
> > > > > you a different story. They all developed their own downstream patches to
> > > > > somehow add the flexibility that is needed for them. So, we have a great
> > > > > deal of fragmentation at the resting-foundation of Linux cryptography.
> > > >
> > > > What distros specifically have patches in their kernels that do
> > > > different things to the random code path? Do you have pointers to those
> > > > patches anywhere? Why have the distros not submitted their changes
> > > > upstream?
> > >
> > > I will leave the representatives from the distros to chime in and point to
> > > these patches.
> >
> > Then why not work with the distros to get these changes merged into the
> > kernel tree? They know that keeping things out-of-the-tree costs them
> > time and money, so why are they keeping them there?
>
> I can speak for my distro.
> We have not proposed them because they are hacks, we know they are
> hacks, and we know they are not the long term solution.
Hacks that work today are the step toward a real solution.
So please, propose them and we can evolve from that.
> Yet we have no better way (in our products, today) so far to deal with
> these issues because what is needed is an effort like LRNG (does not
> have to be this specific implementation), because hacks will not cut it
> in the long term.
So you want to ship this separate driver instead? Great, but as I said
elsewhere, doing a wholesale replacement is almost never the right thing
to do.
Work off of those known-working-and-certified hacks. Submit them and
let's go from there please.
thanks,
greg k-h
