Re: [libvirt] RFC: virtio-rng and /dev/urandom

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa zytor com>]

On April 15, 2016 3:41:34 AM PDT, Cole Robinson <crobinso redhat com> wrote:
>Libvirt currently rejects using host /dev/urandom as an input source
>for a
>virtio-rng device. The only accepted sources are /dev/random and
>/dev/hwrng.
>This is the result of discussions on qemu-devel around when the feature
>was
>first added (2013). Examples:
>
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-09/msg02387.html
>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-03/threads.html#00023
>
>libvirt's rejection of /dev/urandom has generated some complaints from
>users:
>
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074464
>* cited: http://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/
>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-March/msg01062.html
>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg00186.html
>
>I think it's worth having another discussion about this, at least with
>a
>recent argument in one place so we can put it to bed. I'm CCing a bunch
>of
>people. I think the questions are:
>
>1) is the original recommendation to never use virtio-rng+/dev/urandom
>correct?
>
>2) regardless of #1, should we continue to reject that config in
>libvirt?
>
>Thanks,
>Cole

Using /dev/urandom for virtio-rng, *except* perhaps for a small seed, it a complete waste of cycles.  There is absolutely no reason to have one prng feed another.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.