This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
ringsignature at riseup.net ringsignature at riseup.netHello, On 2017-10-06 01:03, Harald Welte wrote: > Hi RS, > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 12:40:11PM +0000, ringsignature at riseup.net wrote: > >> Yes, I think getrandom() is a better default and in fact, the only safe >> interface. I suggest failing the build absent a getrandom() system >> call/glibc interface. Additionally, it would be good to ensure that any >> system running OpenBSC has some source of entropy beyond interrupts and >> timing - is that already the case? > > We of course have no idea on what systems people are using the related > osmocom components on (such as OsmoNITB, OsmoMSC, OsmoSGSN). For some > of the smaller / deeper embedded devices (like e.g. the sysmoBTS 1002) > for sure there is no hardware random number generator and interrupts are > the only source of randomness. > Might those devices be interesting as a research target for generating entropy from a radio interface? The specification suggests that the device does indeed have a radio interface. If so, perhaps it would be a useful experiment for someone to attempt to create an OsmoEntropy subproject? I would be interested in undertaking such a project, if it would be useful and especially if it would be used. > However, in most realistic scenarios you would have more than one BTS > and run the NITB/MSC/SGSN on some kind of (embedded?) x86 or ARM board, > and most systems have had hardware random number generators for quite a > long time. Yes, the question is whether you trust those, but that's > completely off-topic here in this thread. Understood. Happy Hacking, RS