[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160425140420.cf51815650e7237c7ed9ffbf@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:04:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David
Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Kees
Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Laura
Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: SLAB freelist randomization
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:52:30 -0700 Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
> I agree, if we had a generic way to pass entropy across boots on all
> architecture that would be amazing. I will let the SLAB maintainers to
> decide on requiring CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM or documenting it.
In our world, requiring that sort of attention from maintainers
requires a pretty active level of pinging, poking and harrassing ;)
I do think that if you stick with get_random_bytes_arch() then it need
a comment explaining why.
And I (still) don't think that get_random_bytes_arch() actually does
what you want - if CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM isn't implemented then
get_random_bytes_arch() just fails. IOW your statement "the arch
version that will fallback on get_random_bytes sub API in the worse
case" is a misconception? There is no fallback.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
