Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:58:07 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional? |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure there was never a time when entropy > > accounting wasn't racy let alone wrong, SMP or no (fixed in -mm, thank > > you). > > Well is has been argued that the lack of locking in the random driver is a > "feature", adding a little more unpredictability.
Dodgy. Does lack of locking mean users can trick /dev/random into thinking it has more entropy than it does? Or let them detect the time when /dev/random gains entropy, without reading it?
> Now I don't know if that makes sense or not, but the locking certainly has > a cost. If it doesn't actually fix anything then that cost becomes a > waste.
Per-cpu random pools, perhaps :)
-- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |