My opinion: I think that checking whether urandom is correctly seeded would be a good additional feature to have, but I don't think it needs to block this message downgrade. Anybody who sees the current warning is likelier to get confused than to reason correctly about urandom risks based on it -- and I think nearly everybody sees notice messages as well as warning. IMO.
and I think nearly everybody sees notice messages as well as warning. IMO.
The patch drops it all the way to INFO though, which isn't readily visible to at least Tor Browser users.
NOTICE level should be information the operator needs or is useful to know. And I also think it is useful to provide basic status information at bootup so if we ever get a report about a misbehaving relay, we can ask for those "status" line.
With this getrandom() thing, if Tor stops because it can't use its crypto, we ought to put a warning on why even though the users would be "omgwtfbbq is that?". At least, at that point, there are possible action items that the operator can do including seeking support about that "in your face" log line.
If tor recovers from it, I would argue that it should be at NOTICE so the operator can see that it is not critical, that tor did recover but actions can still be taken to fix it.
For instance this, I think it should be at NOTICE for the above reasons. This usually happens when someones run a tor not built for their system like Stretch Debian tor package on Ubuntu 10.04. Having the notice log would allow the operator to try to fix it or simply ignore it. At INFO, I believe most of the users will just never notice it.
log_info(LD_CRYPTO, "Can't get entropy from getrandom()." " You are running a version of Tor built to support" " getrandom(), but the kernel doesn't implement this" " function--probably because it is too old?" " Trying fallback method instead.");
In a nutshell, +1 on removing the warnings except if Tor does stop. And then +1 on NOTICE for useful logging for which the operator can notice.