Bug#1034811: marked as done (linux: consider CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIRTIO=n)
Your message dated Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:12:05 -0700
with message-id <ZEca1WLnlPYgRVbR@mattapan.m5p.com>
and subject line Erk, not what I had thought
has caused the Debian Bug report #1034811,
regarding linux: consider CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIRTIO=n
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1034811: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1034811
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: src:linux
Version: 6.0.3-1~bpo11+1
Severity: wishlist
Looks like someone had the idea of a virtualized HW RNG. Yet looking at
the kernel source, there isn't a single actual implementation. Unless
I'm missing something, having CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIRTIO simply wastes
processor time during build and enlarges the package for no gain.
Perhaps time for Debian to quit packaging this used idea?
Looks like on-processor HW RNGs are what are taking over. Possibly also
the HW RNG from the vTPM implementation.
--
(\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/)
\BS ( | ehem+sigmsg@m5p.com PGP 87145445 | ) /
\_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On further reading it seems the virtio is opposite what I had expected.
Withdrawing this idea.
--
(\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/)
\BS ( | ehem+sigmsg@m5p.com PGP 87145445 | ) /
\_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445
--- End Message ---
Reply to: