Am Montag, 18. September 2017, 11:04:55 CEST schrieb Greg KH: Hi Greg, > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:49:56AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > Am Samstag, 16. September 2017, 15:00:34 CEST schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld: > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > This started out as just replacing the use of crypto/rng with > > > get_random_bytes_wait, > > > > This change is a challenge. The use of the kernel crypto API's DRNG has > > been made to allow FIPS 140-2 compliance. Otherwise, the entire key > > generation logic will not be using the right(TM) DRNG. Thus, I would not > > suggest to replace that for a stable tree. > > Why not? An SP800-90A-compliant DRNG must be used in those circumstances. > What is the issue here, there is only one "DRNG" in the kernel > now (and probably for a long time...) There are more DRNGs implemented in the kernel crypto API (see crypto/drbg.c or crypto/ansi-cprng.c). > > > Note, I am currently working on a pluggable DRNG apporach for /dev/random > > and /dev/urandom to be able to get rid of the use of the kernel crypto > > API's DRNG API. It is ready and I will air that solution shortly. Yet, it > > needs work to be integrated upstream (and approval from Ted Tso). > > We don't postpone work for potential future patches that might or might > not ever happen or get merged. That's how NetBSD died... Then I would recommend to leave it as is or hear complaints from other users. Ciao Stephan