Re: [PATCH v43 01/15] Linux Random Number Generator

On 2 Dec 2021, at 07:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 07:24:43PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jason A. Donenfeld [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:19 PM Simo Sorce [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

that much it is, and it is a required one. However having worked a lot
on this I can tell you there is actually real cryptographic value in
the requirements FIPS introduced over the years
Well I think most of the requirements are sane practices, hopefully
controversial stuff will be minimal.
I happen to think quite a few of the requirements are actually good
ideas to implement to improve the guarantees of randomness

If you think there are good ways to improve the RNG, of course send
patches for this, justifying why, taking into account recent research
into the topic you wish to patch, etc. Don't write, "because FIPS";
instead argue rationale for each patch. And if you _do_ feel the need
to appeal to authority, perhaps links to the various eprint papers you
consulted would be worthwhile. Preferably you're able to do this in a
small, incremental way, with small standalone patchsets, instead of
gigantic series.

I may be parsing things incorrectly, but you seem to be rejecting the
NIST requirements, and then positioning your personal opinion as
superior. It sounds like one authority is being replaced by another.
Perhaps I am missing something.

I am also guessing you've never read the relevant NIST documents. The
documents state the security goals and provide the steps to achieve
them in an implementation.

Ok, I think this thread has gone on long enough without any real
patches.

Please, if you want to support NIST, or any other type of thing, submit
patches that implement what you think will help achieve this.  Absent of
that, we have no idea what NIST or any other random document aims to
require or wish.

Part of the problem here is that NIST (and the concomitant fips certification) is a moving target.   A couple of years ago, we were fine. Today's requirements are different, tomorrow's will be different again.  Today's requirements being different are what resulted in the small patch I mentioned earlier.

You suggested, Greg, that I submit that and see what happens.   I can take a hint :) so I'm working on that as a possible way forward to decouple things a bit without too much churn.

jch

thanks,

greg k-h