[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Make av_get_random_seed not block when waiting for more entropy

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:07:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:28:16PM +0300, Martin Storsj? wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Martin Storsj? <martin at martin.st> writes:
>> >> > 
>> >> > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> before you spend more time on this.
>> >> > >> There is a possible security issue with using non block mode
>> >> > >> namely if we have /dev/*random and not use it we can end up
>> >> > >> using a uninitialized variable. Thats an information leak
>> >> > >> it could leak from pointers (kills ASLR) to OS/platform or
>> >> > >> compiler version or or or ...
>> >> > >> thats all usefull information for a attacker
>> >> > >> he only has to saturate /dev/random so it would block
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Could you elaborate on your concern here? The fix he committed tries
>> >> > > both /dev/random and /dev/urandom, and the latter should never block
>> >> > > (afaik), and even in that case I don't see where any uninitialized
>> >> > > variable would be leaked?
>> >> > 
>> >> > If neither of the files exist, or only /dev/random exists and blocks,
>> >> > it will return an uninitialised value.  It changes only on systems
>> >> > that have a blocking /dev/random and no /dev/urandom.
>> >> 
>> >> True, except that we'd use AV_READ_TIME in the not all that rare cases 
>> >> where it is defined. But for that case where it isn't, what about trying 
>> >> /dev/random in blocking mode only if both the others have failed in 
>> >> nonblocking mode?
>> >
>> > possible
>> >
>> > though maybe we could simplify this by asking which combinations actually
>> > exist?
>> 
>> Given that systems without any of the /dev files certainly exist, we
>> definitely need a sensible fallback for this case.  AV_READ_TIME is
>> only defined for a few arches.
>
> i wonder if systems with a blocking random and no urandom
> exist because if not we dont need the non blocking code. We can just
> do blocking reads

That doesn't address the question of what to do when both of them
fail to deliver, whether through blocking or nonexistence.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com