4 ms·
I'm sure the kernel devs can make it happen, I don't see why VM devs wouldn't want to add this if thry saw clear demand. They probably couldn't just use RDRAND
by eternityforest 5y ago
I'm sure the kernel devs can make it happen, I don't see why VM devs wouldn't want to add this if thry saw clear demand.
They probably couldn't just use RDRAND and the like since Linux doesn't seem to trust that though, so the API could be tricky.
- zamadatix 5y agoBeing able to have a solution isn't enough, even having a solution in hand people could switch to isn't enough. You need to actually show no currently working setups are going to break as a result of the change, regardless what those setups could do to avoid breaking after the change.
- hypertele-Xii 5y agoHow exactly can existing code break if you change randomness? It's already random! Changing random from random to random shouldn't make a difference.
- sundarurfriend 5y ago"break" in this case means made less random/more prone to malicious attacks, hence made less secure. The code won't break in the sense of visibly failing; it'd just silently switch to being less correct and more vulnerable - which is arguably worse.
- wutbrodo 5y agoThere's an example described in the article, unless I'm misunderstanding this thread. It doesn't change the output distribution, but rather the behavior around the interface, causing certain users of the old interface to block forever on the new.