From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 15 02:39:22 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FAD106566B;
	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:39:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net)
Received: from vniz.net (vniz.net [194.87.13.69])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81978FC16;
	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:39:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vniz.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pAF2dDcm069132;
	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:39:13 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net)
Received: (from ache@localhost)
	by localhost (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pAF2dCl6069130;
	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:39:12 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from ache)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:39:12 +0400
From: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111115023912.GA68523@vniz.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>,
	Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>, das@FreeBSD.ORG,
	current@FreeBSD.ORG, secteam@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <20111112102241.GA75396@vniz.net>
	<20111112154135.GA21512@zim.MIT.EDU>
	<20111112171531.GA83419@vniz.net>
	<20111114013004.GA53392@zim.MIT.EDU>
	<20111114192721.GA16834@vniz.net>
	<20111114205855.GB58790@zim.MIT.EDU>
	<20111114212926.GA28783@vniz.net>
	<20111114230855.GA59545@zim.MIT.EDU>
	<20111115004443.GA50429@vniz.net>
	<CAPjTQNFSbkiaDUzMh_WYffM9vF1-H3j-FA2FZJfHR-0uJyJ3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPjTQNFSbkiaDUzMh_WYffM9vF1-H3j-FA2FZJfHR-0uJyJ3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: das@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, secteam@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Is fork() hook ever possible?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:39:22 -0000

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:11:03AM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> > P.S. Do I answer your doubts about &rdat key initialization in my prev.
> > posting?
> 
> I think it's a much correct solution, rather than the original patch,
> while it initializes the whole structure, not only the key array...
> (&rdat.key vs &rdat; and uninitialized pid and tv):
> 
>  	fd = _open(RANDOMDEV, O_RDONLY, 0);
>  	done = 0;
>  	if (fd >= 0) {
> -		if (_read(fd, &rdat, KEYSIZE) == KEYSIZE)
> +		if (_read(fd, &rdat, sizeof(rdat)) == sizeof(rdat))
>  			done = 1;
>  		(void)_close(fd);
> -	}
> +	}
> 

Currently this change will have no any effect in the code because only 
first 128 bytes of the structure are passed later:

arc4_addrandom((u_char *)&rdat, KEYSIZE);

In case you mean passing later whole structure like:

arc4_addrandom((u_char *)&rdat, sizeof(rdat));

it will be incorrect because it change known algorithm parameters, which 
defines exact 128 bytes and not anything else.

-- 
http://ache.vniz.net/