Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed 2012-12-12 20:10:16, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:58:16 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > > > > > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > > > > using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. > > > > > > > > Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? > > > > > > Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? > > > > > Yes > > > In particular the paragraph containing: > > > > > >A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away > > > with > > >the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. > > > > > > Does that answer your question in any way? > > > > > No as AES is a HWRNG about as much as horse is type of automobile. > > Yes, of course. Thanks. Dunno. Some people don't trust HWRNG for various reasons (what if it malfunctions? what if it is backdoored?) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed 2012-12-12 20:10:16, NeilBrown wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:58:16 +0100 Ondřej Bílka nel...@seznam.cz wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka nel...@seznam.cz wrote: I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? Yes In particular the paragraph containing: A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. Does that answer your question in any way? No as AES is a HWRNG about as much as horse is type of automobile. Yes, of course. Thanks. Dunno. Some people don't trust HWRNG for various reasons (what if it malfunctions? what if it is backdoored?) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:58:16 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > > > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > > > using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. > > > > > > Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? > > > > Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? > > > Yes > > In particular the paragraph containing: > > > >A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with > >the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. > > > > Does that answer your question in any way? > > > No as AES is a HWRNG about as much as horse is type of automobile. Yes, of course. Thanks. NeilBrown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > > using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. > > > > Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? > > Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? > Yes > In particular the paragraph containing: > >A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with >the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. > > Does that answer your question in any way? > No as AES is a HWRNG about as much as horse is type of automobile. Ondra -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka nel...@seznam.cz wrote: I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? Yes In particular the paragraph containing: A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. Does that answer your question in any way? No as AES is a HWRNG about as much as horse is type of automobile. Ondra -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:58:16 +0100 Ondřej Bílka nel...@seznam.cz wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka nel...@seznam.cz wrote: I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? Yes In particular the paragraph containing: A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. Does that answer your question in any way? No as AES is a HWRNG about as much as horse is type of automobile. Yes, of course. Thanks. NeilBrown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. > > Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? In particular the paragraph containing: A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. Does that answer your question in any way? NeilBrown > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka nel...@seznam.cz wrote: I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? In particular the paragraph containing: A member of the audience asked why the kernel couldn't just do away with the existing system and use the HWRNG directly. Does that answer your question in any way? NeilBrown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
