On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 09:29:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:51 PM Lennart Poettering
> <mzxreary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Oh man. Just spend 5min to understand the situation, before claiming
> > this was garbage or that was garbage. The code above does not block
> > boot.
>
> Yes it does. You clearly didn't read the thread.
>
> > It blocks startup of services that explicit order themselves
> > after the code above. There's only a few services that should do that,
> > and the main system boots up just fine without waiting for this.
>
> That's a nice theory, but it doesn't actually match reality.
>
> There are clearly broken setups that use this for things that it
> really shouldn't be used for. Asking for true randomness at boot
> before there is any indication that randomness exists, and then just
> blocking with no further action that could actually _generate_ said
> randomness.
>
> If your description was true that the system would come up and be
> usable while the blocked thread is waiting for that to happen, things
> would be fine.
>
A small note here, especially after I've just read the commit log of
72dbcf721566 ('Revert ext4: "make __ext4_get_inode_loc plug"'), which
unfairly blames systemd there.
Yes, the systemd-random-seed(8) process blocks, but this is an
isolated process, and it's only there as a synchronization point and
to load/restore random seeds from disk across reboots.
The wisdom of having a sysnchronization service ("before/after urandom
CRNG is inited") can be debated. That service though, and systemd in
general, did _not_ block the overall system boot.
What blocked the system boot was GDM/gnome-session implicitly calling
getrandom() for the Xorg MIT cookie. This was shown in the strace log
below:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190910173243.GA3992@darwi-home-pc
thanks,
--
darwi
http://darwish.chasingpointers.com
