Re: [MirageOS-devel] Update on entropy

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:16, Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> And the question I am raising is: Are there objections to this? Did
>> anyone want to code something that requires direct access to entropy
>> sources (i.e. another RNG)? Did anyone want to make a separate entropy
>> provider?
> 
> I think that's a good idea. We should still keep the modular approach of 
> MirageOS (ie. having separate librarie(s) to deal with entropy) but I'm fine 
> to remove the ENTROPY signature for V1 and V1_LWT as it doesn't bring much 
> (apart from confusion it appears).

I'm also fine with this approach.  Just one thing that would be good
to define would be which our "singleton" devices are.  In the case of
entropy, it's extremely unlikely that you would want to have a 
non-shared mixer, so perhaps we should enforce that explicitly in the
Mirage config eDSL...

It would also be good to port the TCP/IP stack to using nocrypto at
the same time, to give it the IP ID and TCP ISN random sources, and
to have more than one consumer outside of the TLS stack.  This is a
very localised patch -- it currently uses the Random module directly.

-anil
_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel