- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Dec 4 2018
Nov 27 2018
Nov 14 2018
Oct 25 2018
I don't know enough to review this request. Maybe delphij, emaste or one of the other secteam members has more domain experience here.
Oct 24 2018
Approved based on timeout from delphij.
Oct 20 2018
I have no objection. I'm not sure I'm qualified to weigh in on it. If markm is okay with it, then I would go ahead with it.
Logic looks reasonable to me. I have only read through the logic, not tested it myself.
Sep 27 2018
Sep 12 2018
Aug 24 2018
Aug 23 2018
Add secteam instead of just me.
Jun 21 2018
May 20 2018
May 12 2018
Address feedback from bjk.
May 11 2018
May 8 2018
Apr 4 2018
Mar 14 2018
Mar 8 2018
Mar 7 2018
Mar 5 2018
Adding cperciva and jmg who may be able to help provide some opinions about how they think this should go.
Feb 6 2018
Okay, based on that, looks good to me.
Feb 5 2018
Would it be better off to just not do checksumming for this and use the source as is?
Feb 4 2018
Jan 16 2018
In D13925#292062, @cem wrote:In D13925#292058, @badfilemagic_gmail.com wrote:Conrad, thanks for the details. I also looked at the code in the other review and it looks good. I’d expect whitened output from the ctr-aes drbg to measure ~6.5 bits when put through the sp800-90b tool. That’s roughly what you get out of 1000000 samples from RDRND on Intel.
FWIW, these processors also have RDRAND. I don't know if the RDRAND implementation is related to the CCP device TRNG or not.
I obtained some sample output from the CTR-AES DRBG via kgdb and /dev/mem:
This is fine (obviously missing the actual implementation). Adding Dean to the reviewers, he has history in doing assessments of HW TRNG and might be a good collaborator to look at the quality of the bits coming from ccp(4).
Dec 21 2017
Dec 17 2017
Dec 15 2017
Looks okay to me but I'm probably not the best person to judge. If anyone else would like to weigh in. Feel free.
Dec 9 2017
Dec 8 2017
Can you please review?
Dec 6 2017
In D13392#279901, @gjb wrote:In D13392#279884, @remko wrote:shouldn't we try to renumber the rel0.current/rel1.current stuff ? I forgot how we did that in the past though so I can be mistaken :)
Generally, yes, but it tends to be a bit more complicated than what Gordon has proposed here.
Accommodate r51259.
I should have added secteam as well. Sorry about that.
Adding doceng