Re: [PATCH] random: add blocking facility to urandom
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 02:26:35PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:We're looking for a generic solution here that doesn't require re-educating every single piece of userspace. And anything done in userspace is going to be full of possible holes -- there needs to be something in place that actually *enforces* the policy, and centralized accounting/tracking, lest you wind up with multiple processes racing to grab the entropy.Yeah, but there are userspace programs that depend on urandom not blocking... so your proposed change would break them.
I'm already consigned to the fact this isn't going to fly, but I'm still curious to know examples of programs that are going to break here, for my own education. Its already possible for urandom reads to fail as the code is now (-ERESTARTSYS and -EFAULT are possible), so a sane program ought to already be handling error cases, though not -EAGAIN, which this would add.
-- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html