From: <bogus@does.not.exist.com>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: No subject
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:31:33 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.10.1483869280.4005.ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> (raw)
"""
Since ADC was not designed to be a dedicated HW RNG, we do not want to bind=
it to /dev/hwrng framework directly.
"""
> Where is the description of the RNG, where is the test implementation?=20
> >=20
> > Otherwise, your patch will cause high CPU load, as continuously=20
> > read ADC data if entropy bits under write_wakeup_threshold.
>=20
> The issue is that although you may have analyzed it, others are unable=20
> to measure the quality of the RNG and assess the design as well as the=20
> implementation of the RNG. This RNG is the only implementation of a=20
> hardware RNG that per default and without being able to change it at=20
> runtime injects data into the input_pool where the noise source cannot=20
> be audited. Note, even other respected RNG noise sources like the=20
> Intel RDRAND will not feed into / dev/random per default in a way that do=
minates all other noise sources.
>=20
> I would like to be able to deactivate that noise source to the extent=20
> that it does not cause /dev/random to unblock. The reason is that your=20
> noise source starts to dominate all other noise sources.
I think the short-term problem here is the config logic:
config ATH9K_HWRNG
bool "Random number generator support"
depends on ATH9K && (HW_RANDOM =3D y || HW_RANDOM =3D ATH9K)
default y
If you have *any* hwrngs you want to use and you have an ath9k card (HW_RAN=
DOM =3D y and ATH9K !=3D n), you get the behavior Stephan is pointing out.
Short term, we should just default no here.
> If you think that this patch is a challenge because your driver starts=20
> to spin, please help and offer another solution.
Well, I don't buy the reasoning listed above for not using the hwrng framew=
ork. Interrupt timings were never designed to be a source of entropy eithe=
r. We need to grab it where ever we can find it, especially on embedded sy=
stems. Documentation/hw_random.txt even says:
"""
This data is NOT CHECKED by any fitness tests, and could potentially be bog=
us (if the hardware is faulty or has been tampered with).
"""
I really don't think there's a problem with adding these sorts of sources u=
nder char/hw_random/. I think the only thing we would be concerned about, =
other than the already addressed entropy estimation, would be constraining =
the data rate.
Is ath9k the only wireless card that exposes ADC registers? What about sou=
nd cards?
thx,
Jason.
next reply other threads:[~2016-11-19 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-19 18:31 bogus [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-19 18:31 No subject bogus
2016-11-19 18:31 bogus
2016-11-19 18:31 bogus
2016-06-13 6:24 bogus
2016-06-13 6:24 bogus
2016-02-09 7:29 bogus
2015-11-16 16:13 bogus
2015-10-12 17:26 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2013-09-15 9:49 bogus
2013-09-15 9:49 bogus
2013-09-15 9:49 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-01-16 21:46 bogus
2013-01-16 21:46 bogus
2012-11-08 9:33 bogus
2012-05-25 15:26 bogus
2012-05-25 15:26 bogus
2012-04-05 7:54 bogus
2012-04-05 7:54 bogus
2012-02-27 5:00 bogus
2012-02-27 5:00 bogus
2012-02-27 5:00 bogus
2012-01-15 8:24 bogus
2011-11-12 14:39 bogus
2011-11-12 14:39 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-06-04 23:16 bogus
2011-06-04 23:16 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-07-23 10:05 bogus
2010-03-25 17:02 bogus
2010-03-25 17:02 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-15 8:49 bogus
2009-01-04 17:33 bogus
2009-01-04 17:33 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-07-28 4:41 bogus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=mailman.10.1483869280.4005.ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
--to=bogus@does.not.exist.com \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).