Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-16 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:56:28PM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020, 15:15:55 CEST schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > Hi Willy, > > > > And this is all ??? > > > > Possibly a lot of people got used to seeing the numerous versions > > and are less attentive to new series, it's

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-07 Thread Nicolai Stange
Eric Biggers writes: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: >> >> Would some maintainer please comment on potential problems or >> shortcomings? >> > > Well, very people are experts in the Linux RNG *and* have time to review large > patchsets, especially when three

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-06 Thread Stephan Mueller
Am Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2020, 06:24:09 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers: Hi Eric, > > Note that having multiple RNG implementations would cause fragmentation, > more maintenance burden, etc. So IMO, that should be a last resort. > Instead we should try to find an implementation that works for

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-06 Thread Eric Biggers
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies: > > Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of > "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set strictly isn't about > crypto at all; the crypto subsystem is in the

RE: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Van Leeuwen, Pascal
Cerri > ; Neil Horman ; Randy Dunlap > ; Julia Lawall > ; Dan Carpenter ; Andy Lavr > ; Eric Biggers > ; Jason A. Donenfeld ; Stephan Müller > ; Petr Tesarik > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST > SP800-90B compliance > >

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:39:35PM +, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote: > > Then your company can not contribute in Linux kernel development, as > > this is obviously not allowed by such a footer. > > > Interesting, this has never been raised as a problem until today ... > Going back through my mail

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Randy Dunlap
ndy Lutomirski ; >> Florian Weimer ; Lennart >> Poettering ; Peter Matthias >> ; Marcelo Henrique Cerri >> ; Neil Horman ; Randy >> Dunlap ; Julia Lawall >> ; Dan Carpenter ; Andy Lavr >> ; Eric Biggers >> ; Jason A. Donenfeld ; Stephan Müller >

RE: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Van Leeuwen, Pascal
Cerri > ; Neil Horman ; Randy Dunlap > ; Julia Lawall > ; Dan Carpenter ; Andy Lavr > ; Eric Biggers > ; Jason A. Donenfeld ; Stephan Müller > ; Petr Tesarik > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST > SP800-90B compliance > >

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
gt; > ; William Jon McCann ; > > zhangjs ; Andy Lutomirski ; > > Florian Weimer ; Lennart > > Poettering ; Peter Matthias > > ; Marcelo Henrique Cerri > > ; Neil Horman ; Randy > > Dunlap ; Julia Lawall > > ; Dan Carpenter ; Andy > > Lavr ; Er

RE: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Van Leeuwen, Pascal
Cerri > ; Neil Horman ; Randy Dunlap > ; Julia Lawall > ; Dan Carpenter ; Andy Lavr > ; Eric Biggers > ; Jason A. Donenfeld ; Stephan Müller > ; Petr Tesarik > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST > SP800-90B compliance > >

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:33:58PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:15:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies: > > > > > > Jason personally

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 01:35:18PM +, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote: > ** This message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s). It may contain information that is confidential and privileged. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Stephan Mueller
Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020, 15:15:55 CEST schrieb Willy Tarreau: Hi Willy, > > And this is all ??? > > Possibly a lot of people got used to seeing the numerous versions > and are less attentive to new series, it's possible that your message > will wake everyone up. I think that points to my

RE: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Van Leeuwen, Pascal
er Matthias > ; Marcelo Henrique Cerri > ; Neil Horman ; > Randy Dunlap ; Julia Lawall ; > Dan Carpenter ; Andy Lavr > ; Eric Biggers ; Jason A. Donenfeld > ; Stephan Müller > ; Petr Tesarik > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST >

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:15:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies: > > > > Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of > > "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies: > > Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of > "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set strictly isn't about > crypto at all; the crypto subsystem is in the

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-10-02 Thread Torsten Duwe
Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies: Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set strictly isn't about crypto at all; the crypto subsystem is in the unlucky position to just depend on a good entropy source. Greg claims that

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-09-22 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:21:52 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 03:23:44PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > > Am Montag, 21. September 2020, 09:58:16 CEST schrieb Nicolai > > > Stange: > > > > > > > -

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-09-22 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 03:23:44PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > Am Montag, 21. September 2020, 09:58:16 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange: > > > > > - people dislike the approach of having two competing implementations for > > >

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-09-22 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Am Montag, 21. September 2020, 09:58:16 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange: > > > - people dislike the approach of having two competing implementations for > > what is basically the same functionality in the kernel. > > Is this really

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-09-21 Thread Stephan Mueller
Am Montag, 21. September 2020, 09:58:16 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange: Hi Nicolai, > Hi all, > > first of all, my apologies for the patch bomb following up in reply to this > mail here -- it's not meant to receive any serious review at all, but only > to support the discussion I'm hoping to get

Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST SP800-90B compliance

2020-09-21 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
I haven't looked into the details of this patchset yet, but your description here indicates to me that this is motivated by FIPS certification desires, which...worries me. I would like to rewrite the RNG at some point, and I've started to work on a bunch of designs for this (and proving them