linux/crypto/drbg.c

617 lines
18 KiB

crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Include get_random_bytes() output in additional input Woodage & Shumow (2018) (https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/349.pdf) showed that contrary to the claims made by NIST in SP800-90A, HMAC_DRBG doesn't satisfy the formal definition of forward secrecy (i.e. "backtracking resistance") when it's called with an empty additional input string. The actual attack seems pretty benign, as it doesn't actually give the attacker any previous RNG output, but rather just allows them to test whether their guess of the previous block of RNG output is correct. Regardless, it's an annoying design flaw, and it's yet another example of why NIST's DRBGs aren't all that great. Meanwhile, the kernel's HMAC_DRBG code also tries to reseed itself automatically after random.c has reseeded itself. But the implementation is buggy, as it just checks whether 300 seconds have elapsed, rather than looking at the actual generation counter. Let's just follow the example of BoringSSL and use the conservative approach of always including 32 bytes of "regular" random data in the additional input string. This fixes both issues described above. This does reduce performance. But this should be tolerable, since: - Due to earlier changes, the kernel code that was previously using drbg.c regardless of FIPS mode is now using it only in FIPS mode. - The additional input string is processed only once per request. So if a lot of bytes are generated at once, the cost is amortized. - The NIST DRBGs are notoriously slow anyway. Note that this fix should have no impact (either positive or negative) on FIPS 140 certifiability. From FIPS's point of view the code added by this commit simply doesn't matter: it adds zero entropy to something that doesn't need to contain entropy. Fixes: 541af946fe13 ("crypto: drbg - SP800-90A Deterministic Random Bit Generator") Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-04-19 23:34:18 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Include get_random_bytes() output in additional input Woodage & Shumow (2018) (https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/349.pdf) showed that contrary to the claims made by NIST in SP800-90A, HMAC_DRBG doesn't satisfy the formal definition of forward secrecy (i.e. "backtracking resistance") when it's called with an empty additional input string. The actual attack seems pretty benign, as it doesn't actually give the attacker any previous RNG output, but rather just allows them to test whether their guess of the previous block of RNG output is correct. Regardless, it's an annoying design flaw, and it's yet another example of why NIST's DRBGs aren't all that great. Meanwhile, the kernel's HMAC_DRBG code also tries to reseed itself automatically after random.c has reseeded itself. But the implementation is buggy, as it just checks whether 300 seconds have elapsed, rather than looking at the actual generation counter. Let's just follow the example of BoringSSL and use the conservative approach of always including 32 bytes of "regular" random data in the additional input string. This fixes both issues described above. This does reduce performance. But this should be tolerable, since: - Due to earlier changes, the kernel code that was previously using drbg.c regardless of FIPS mode is now using it only in FIPS mode. - The additional input string is processed only once per request. So if a lot of bytes are generated at once, the cost is amortized. - The NIST DRBGs are notoriously slow anyway. Note that this fix should have no impact (either positive or negative) on FIPS 140 certifiability. From FIPS's point of view the code added by this commit simply doesn't matter: it adds zero entropy to something that doesn't need to contain entropy. Fixes: 541af946fe13 ("crypto: drbg - SP800-90A Deterministic Random Bit Generator") Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-04-19 23:34:18 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Include get_random_bytes() output in additional input Woodage & Shumow (2018) (https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/349.pdf) showed that contrary to the claims made by NIST in SP800-90A, HMAC_DRBG doesn't satisfy the formal definition of forward secrecy (i.e. "backtracking resistance") when it's called with an empty additional input string. The actual attack seems pretty benign, as it doesn't actually give the attacker any previous RNG output, but rather just allows them to test whether their guess of the previous block of RNG output is correct. Regardless, it's an annoying design flaw, and it's yet another example of why NIST's DRBGs aren't all that great. Meanwhile, the kernel's HMAC_DRBG code also tries to reseed itself automatically after random.c has reseeded itself. But the implementation is buggy, as it just checks whether 300 seconds have elapsed, rather than looking at the actual generation counter. Let's just follow the example of BoringSSL and use the conservative approach of always including 32 bytes of "regular" random data in the additional input string. This fixes both issues described above. This does reduce performance. But this should be tolerable, since: - Due to earlier changes, the kernel code that was previously using drbg.c regardless of FIPS mode is now using it only in FIPS mode. - The additional input string is processed only once per request. So if a lot of bytes are generated at once, the cost is amortized. - The NIST DRBGs are notoriously slow anyway. Note that this fix should have no impact (either positive or negative) on FIPS 140 certifiability. From FIPS's point of view the code added by this commit simply doesn't matter: it adds zero entropy to something that doesn't need to contain entropy. Fixes: 541af946fe13 ("crypto: drbg - SP800-90A Deterministic Random Bit Generator") Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-04-19 23:34:18 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Include get_random_bytes() output in additional input Woodage & Shumow (2018) (https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/349.pdf) showed that contrary to the claims made by NIST in SP800-90A, HMAC_DRBG doesn't satisfy the formal definition of forward secrecy (i.e. "backtracking resistance") when it's called with an empty additional input string. The actual attack seems pretty benign, as it doesn't actually give the attacker any previous RNG output, but rather just allows them to test whether their guess of the previous block of RNG output is correct. Regardless, it's an annoying design flaw, and it's yet another example of why NIST's DRBGs aren't all that great. Meanwhile, the kernel's HMAC_DRBG code also tries to reseed itself automatically after random.c has reseeded itself. But the implementation is buggy, as it just checks whether 300 seconds have elapsed, rather than looking at the actual generation counter. Let's just follow the example of BoringSSL and use the conservative approach of always including 32 bytes of "regular" random data in the additional input string. This fixes both issues described above. This does reduce performance. But this should be tolerable, since: - Due to earlier changes, the kernel code that was previously using drbg.c regardless of FIPS mode is now using it only in FIPS mode. - The additional input string is processed only once per request. So if a lot of bytes are generated at once, the cost is amortized. - The NIST DRBGs are notoriously slow anyway. Note that this fix should have no impact (either positive or negative) on FIPS 140 certifiability. From FIPS's point of view the code added by this commit simply doesn't matter: it adds zero entropy to something that doesn't need to contain entropy. Fixes: 541af946fe13 ("crypto: drbg - SP800-90A Deterministic Random Bit Generator") Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-04-19 23:34:18 -07:00
crypto: drbg - always seeded with SP800-90B compliant noise source As the Jitter RNG provides an SP800-90B compliant noise source, use this noise source always for the (re)seeding of the DRBG. To make sure the DRBG is always properly seeded, the reseed threshold is reduced to 1<<20 generate operations. The Jitter RNG may report health test failures. Such health test failures are treated as transient as follows. The DRBG will not reseed from the Jitter RNG (but from get_random_bytes) in case of a health test failure. Though, it produces the requested random number. The Jitter RNG has a failure counter where at most 1024 consecutive resets due to a health test failure are considered as a transient error. If more consecutive resets are required, the Jitter RNG will return a permanent error which is returned to the caller by the DRBG. With this approach, the worst case reseed threshold is significantly lower than mandated by SP800-90A in order to seed with an SP800-90B noise source: the DRBG has a reseed threshold of 2^20 * 1024 = 2^30 generate requests. Yet, in case of a transient Jitter RNG health test failure, the DRBG is seeded with the data obtained from get_random_bytes. However, if the Jitter RNG fails during the initial seeding operation even due to a health test error, the DRBG will send an error to the caller because at that time, the DRBG has received no seed that is SP800-90B compliant. Signed-off-by: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2020-04-17 21:34:03 +02:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00
crypto: drbg - Remove support for "prediction resistance" "Prediction resistance", i.e. the property that the RNG's output is unpredictable even after a state compromise, might sound like a nice property to have. In reality, it's not very practical, as it requires that fresh entropy be pulled on every request. (The normal Linux RNG doesn't provide prediction resistance.) In the case of drbg.c, that means pulling from "jitterentropy", which is extremely slow. For some perspective, running a simple benchmark, generating 32 random bytes takes the following amount of time: get_random_bytes(): 90 ns drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512: 3707 ns drbg_pr_hmac_sha512: 773082 ns So at least in this case, the "pr" (prediction-resistant) DRBG is over 200 times slower than the "nopr" (non-prediction-resistant) DRBG, or over 8000 times slower than the normal Linux RNG. While anyone using drbg.c has always had to tolerate that it's slower than the normal Linux RNG, the "pr" DRBG is clearly at another level of slowness. Thus, the following is also entirely unsurprising: - FIPS 140-3 doesn't actually require that SP800-90A DRBG implementations support prediction resistance. The non-prediction resistant DRBGs can be, and have been, certified. - drbg.c registers "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" with a higher cra_priority than "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512". So "drbg_nopr_hmac_sha512" is already the one actually being used in practice. Given these considerations, it's clear that "drbg_pr_hmac_sha512" isn't actually useful, and it essentially just existed as another curiosity in the museum of crypto algorithms. Remove it to simplify the code. Suggested-by: Joachim Vandersmissen <joachim@jvdsn.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2026-05-05 17:02:58 -07:00