Hi Linus,
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 11:54:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So 99% of the time, the solution really is just "getrandom()",
> generally with the usual buffering ("read more than you need, so that
> you don't do it all the time").\
That buffering cannot be done safely currently -- VM forks, reseeding
semantics, and so forth. Again, discussed in the cover letter of the
patch if you'd like to engage with those ideas.
> just using your own rng in user space entirely.
This is the thing that isn't quite safe.
> Let me guess: the people you talked to who were excited about this are
> mainly just library people?
No, actually. Mainly people deploying production network-facing things
that need a lot of randomness often. e.g. CBC nonces in TLS, or random
sequence numbers in UDP-based protocols.
> So when you say that this isn't about micro-optimizations, I really
> say "humbug". It's *clearly* about micro-optimization of an area that
> very few people care about, since the alternative is just our existing
> "getrandom()" that is not at all horribly slow.
The alternative is what people currently do, which is attempt to
implement a userspace RNG, which cannot be done safely. Again, -->
cover letter.
> Because the people who actually *use* the random numbers and are *so*
> performance-critical about them already have their own per-thread
> buffers or what-not
...which are not safe.
Anyway, if you're NACK'ing the whole getrandom() vDSO project, just
please outright say so, so I don't spend another 14 revisions in vain.
Jason
