On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 18:26 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:00:25PM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > > On the better bootloaders, an initramfs segment can be loaded
> > > independently (and you can have as many as required), which makes
> > > a
> On the better bootloaders, an initramfs segment can be loaded
> independently (and you can have as many as required), which makes an
> early_initramfs a more palatable vector to inject large amounts of
> entropy into the next boot than, say, modifying the kernel image
> directly at every boot/shu
On 3 June 2017 at 18:54, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
>> ...
>> Of course this will fail on systems with no high-res timer. Are there
>> still some of those? It might be done in about 1000 times as long on a
>> system that lacks the realtime library'
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 17:53 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> (Meanwhile...)
>
> In my own code, I'm currently playing with a workaround that looks
> like this:
>
> --- a/src/main.c
> +++ b/src/main.c
>
> +#include
> +#include
>
> +struct rng_initializer {
> + struct completion done;
>
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 11:47 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> That's about 3x of jhash speed (7 nsecs). So that might closer
> to a more palatable replacement for jhash. Do we lose any security
> advantages with halfsiphash?
Have you tested a lower round SipHash? Probably best to stick with the
usual
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >
> > Siphash needs a random secret key, yes. The point is that the hash
> > function remains secure so long as the secret key is kept secret.
> > Other functions can't make the same guarantee, and so nervous
> > p