Apply the following automated changes to try to eliminate
no-longer-needed sys/cdefs.h includes as well as now-empty
blank lines in a row.
Remove /^#if.*\n#endif.*\n#include\s+<sys/cdefs.h>.*\n/
Remove /\n+#include\s+<sys/cdefs.h>.*\n+#if.*\n#endif.*\n+/
Remove /\n+#if.*\n#endif.*\n+/
Remove /^#if.*\n#endif.*\n/
Remove /\n+#include\s+<sys/cdefs.h>\n#include\s+<sys/types.h>/
Remove /\n+#include\s+<sys/cdefs.h>\n#include\s+<sys/param.h>/
Remove /\n+#include\s+<sys/cdefs.h>\n#include\s+<sys/capsicum.h>/
Sponsored by: Netflix
The SPDX folks have obsoleted the BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD identifier. Catch
up to that fact and revert to their recommended match of BSD-2-Clause.
Discussed with: pfg
MFC After: 3 days
Sponsored by: Netflix
Treat it as a synonym for GRND_NONBLOCK. The reasoning is this:
We have two choices for handling Linux's GRND_INSECURE API flag.
1. We could ignore it completely (like GRND_RANDOM). However, this might
produce the surprising result of GRND_INSECURE requests blocking, when the
Linux API does not block.
2. Alternatively, we could treat GRND_INSECURE requests as requests for
GRND_NONBLOCk. Here, the surprising result for Linux programs is that
invocations with unseeded random(4) will produce EAGAIN, rather than
garbage.
Honoring the flag in the way Linux does seems fraught. If we actually use
the output of a random(4) implementation prior to seeding, we leak some
entropy (in an information theory and also practical sense) from what will
be the initial seed to attackers (or allow attackers to arbitrary DoS
initial seeding, if we don't leak). This seems unacceptable -- it defeats
the purpose of blocking on initial seeding.
Secondary to that concern, before seeding we may have arbitrarily little
entropy collected; producing output from zero or a handful of entropy bits
does not seem particularly useful to userspace.
If userspace can accept garbage, insecure, non-random bytes, they can create
their own insecure garbage with srandom(time(NULL)) or similar. Any program
which would be satisfied with a 3-bit key CTR stream has no need for CSPRNG
bytes. So asking the kernel to produce such an output from the secure
getrandom(2) API seems inane.
For now, we've elected to emulate GRND_INSECURE as an alternative spelling
of GRND_NONBLOCK (2). Consider this API not-quite stable for now. We
guarantee it will never block. But we will attempt to monitor actual port
uptake of this bizarre API and may revise our plans for the unseeded
behavior (prior stable/13 branching).
Approved by: csprng(markm), manpages(bcr)
See also: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/cover.1577088521.git.luto@kernel.org/
See also: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20200107204400.GH3619@mit.edu/
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D23130
opt_compat.h is mentioned in nearly 180 files. In-progress network
driver compabibility improvements may add over 100 more so this is
closer to "just about everywhere" than "only some files" per the
guidance in sys/conf/options.
Keep COMPAT_LINUX32 in opt_compat.h as it is confined to a subset of
sys/compat/linux/*.c. A fake _COMPAT_LINUX option ensure opt_compat.h
is created on all architectures.
Move COMPAT_LINUXKPI to opt_dontuse.h as it is only used to control the
set of compiled files.
Reviewed by: kib, cem, jhb, jtl
Sponsored by: DARPA, AFRL
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14941
The general idea here is to provide userspace programs with well-defined
sources of entropy, in a fashion that doesn't require opening a new file
descriptor (ulimits) or accessing paths (/dev/urandom may be restricted
by chroot or capsicum).
getrandom(2) is the more general API, and comes from the Linux world.
Since our urandom and random devices are identical, the GRND_RANDOM flag
is ignored.
getentropy(3) is added as a compatibility shim for the OpenBSD API.
truss(1) support is included.
Tests for both system calls are provided. Coverage is believed to be at
least as comprehensive as LTP getrandom(2) test coverage. Additionally,
instructions for running the LTP tests directly against FreeBSD are provided
in the "Test Plan" section of the Differential revision linked below. (They
pass, of course.)
PR: 194204
Reported by: David CARLIER <david.carlier AT hardenedbsd.org>
Discussed with: cperciva, delphij, jhb, markj
Relnotes: maybe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14500
