Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:46:30 +0800 | From | andyliu <> | Subject | Re: Concurrent access to /dev/urandom |
| |
hi Ted
i think this is better than use the spin lock. but i think maybe there should put an #ifdef SMP :) just like
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP tmp[0] = 0x67452301 ^ smp_processor_id(); tmp[1] = 0xefcdab89 ^ (__u32) current; tmp[2] = 0x98badcfe ^ preempt_count(); #endif
is it needed?
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 20:57:05 -0500, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:56:14PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > Ted, I think this is a bit more straightforward than your patch, and > > safer as it protects get_random_bytes() and internal extract_entropy() > > users. And I'd be leery of your get_cpu() trick due to preempt > > issues. > > > > I'm concerned that turning off interrupts during even a single SHA-1 > transform will put us above the radar with respect to the preempt > latency statistics again. We could use a separate spinlock that only > pretects the mix_ptr and mixing access to the pool, so we're at least > not disabling interrupts, but we still are holding a spinlock across a > cryptographic operation. > > So I've come up with another trick which I think avoids needing to add > additional locking altogether. What we do is we diddle the initial > HASH input values with the following values: initial the processor ID, > the current task pointer, and preempt_count(). On an UP system with > preemption, it won't matter if we get preempted, since on a UP system > access to the pool is by definition serialized :-). On a SMP system > with preemption, while we could theoretically get preempted away and > then scheduled on another CPU, just in time for another process to > call extract_entropy(), the task identifier is enough to guarantee a > unique starting point. The reason for adding preempt_count() is so we > can deal with the case where a process gets interrupted, and the > bottom half handler calls get_random_bytes(), and at the same time > said process gets preempted away to another CPU(). I think this > covers all of the cases..... > > Yeah, it would be simper to reason about things if we were to just put > it under the spinlock, but everyone seems tp be on a reduce latency at > all costs kick as of late. :-) > > Comments? > > - Ted > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > > ===== drivers/char/random.c 1.60 vs edited ===== > --- 1.60/drivers/char/random.c 2004-11-18 17:23:14 -05:00 > +++ edited/drivers/char/random.c 2004-12-08 20:51:18 -05:00 > @@ -1402,10 +1402,19 @@ static ssize_t extract_entropy(struct en > sec_random_state->entropy_count); > } > > - /* Hash the pool to get the output */ > - tmp[0] = 0x67452301; > - tmp[1] = 0xefcdab89; > - tmp[2] = 0x98badcfe; > + /* > + * Hash the pool to get the output. > + * > + * We diddle the initial inputs so that if two > + * processors are executing extract_entropy > + * concurrently, they will get different results. > + * Even if we get preempted and moved to another CPU, > + * the combination of initial CPU, task pointer, and > + * preempt count is good enough to avoid duplication. > + */ > + tmp[0] = 0x67452301 ^ smp_processor_id(); > + tmp[1] = 0xefcdab89 ^ (__u32) current; > + tmp[2] = 0x98badcfe ^ preempt_count(); > tmp[3] = 0x10325476; > #ifdef USE_SHA > tmp[4] = 0xc3d2e1f0; > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
-- Yours andyliu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |