On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:43:03PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:45 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 07:45:04PM +0200, Alexander Gabert wrote: > > > Hi Linus, > > > hi LKML, > > > > > > i would like to thank LKML and especially Eric (thanks for the per_cpu > > > macro tips and design guidelines!) and the other contributors to this > > > idea. > > > > > > This time the patch is rather big because it also removes > > > get_random_int() and introduces get_random_long() throughout the kernel. > > > > Stop right there. You still haven't answered my original question. > > What is the point of this exercise in the first place, please? > > > > Am I right in thinking you have three unrelated patches here? > > > > - something to do with aux vector headers > > the primary goal is to pass a random value to userspace at process > start; this to save glibc from having to open /dev/urandom on ever > program start (which it does now for all apps compiled with > -fstack-protector, which in various distros is "everything").
Interesting. What are our requirements here? Defending against local attackers who can build exploits on the fly probably means something stronger than get_random_int. > > - sweeping change of get_random_int to get_random_long for no obvious reason > > and this is because Alexander wants 2 and not 1 random int to be passed > for his own glibc proposed change (combined with get_random_int() being > designed for only 4 bytes per process ;-) Sure. Still, separate patches. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/