On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:53:03PM +0200, Stephan M?ller wrote:

Am Montag, 27. M?rz 2017, 06:23:11 CEST schrieb PrasannaKumar Muralidharan:

Hi PrasannaKumar,

quoted

quoted

Oh my, if you are right with your first guess, this is a bad DRNG design.

Just out of curiousity: what happens if a caller invokes the seed function
twice or more times (each time with the sufficient amount of bits)? What
is
your guess here?

Should the second seed use the random data generated by the device?

A DRNG should be capable of processing an arbitrary amount of seed data. It 
may be the case that the seed data must be processed in chunks though.

As I said, I do not know the implementation details about hardware. They
are just not disclossed.

That said, it may be the case that after injecting one chunk of seed the 
currently discussed RNG simply needs to generate a random number to process 
the input data before another seed can be added. But that is pure speculation.

But I guess that can be easily tested: inject a known seed into the DRNG, 
generate a random number, inject the same seed again and again generate a 
random number. If both are identical (which I do not hope), then the internal 
state is simply overwritten (strange DRNG design).

A similar test can be made to see whether a larger set of seed simply 
overwrites the state or is really processed.

1. seed
2. generate random data
3. reset
4. seed with anther seed
5. generate random data
6. reset
7. seed with same data from 1
8. seed with same data from 2
9. generate random data

If data from 9 is identical to 2, then additional seed data is discarded -> 
bad design. If data from 9 is identical to 5, then the additional data 
overwrites the initial data -> bad DRNG design. If data from 9 neither matches 
2 or 5, then all seed is taken -> good design.

I tested a little bit and:
1. Seeding with some value
2. generating random,
3. kcapi_rng_destroy+kcrng_init, (I cannot do a hardware reset except
   reboot of entire system)
4. seeding with the same value as in (1) - different random numbers.

Doing a system reboot and repeating above - different random numbers
(all are different: step (2) and in (4)).

Your test case also produces different random values every time.

Best regards,
Krzysztof