Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:12:39 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] random32: introduce random32_get_bytes() and prandom32_get_bytes() | From | Akinobu Mita <> |
| |
2012/10/30 Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>: > 2012/10/30 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>: >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 04:18:58PM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >>> /** >>> + * prandom32_get_bytes - get the requested number of pseudo-random bytes >>> + * @state: pointer to state structure holding seeded state. >>> + * @buf: where to copy the pseudo-random bytes to >>> + * @bytes: the requested number of bytes >>> + * >>> + * This is used for pseudo-randomness with no outside seeding. >>> + * For more random results, use random32_get_bytes(). >>> + */ >>> + >>> +/** >>> + * random32_get_bytes - get the requested number of pseudo-random bytes >>> + * @buf: where to copy the pseudo-random bytes to >>> + * @bytes: the requested number of bytes >>> + */ >> >> This naming scheme is going to be very confusing. If the function is >> going to return a pseudo-random number, it *must* have a "prandom" >> suffix. Otherwise some kernel developer, somewhere, will get confused >> between get_random_bytes() and random32_get_bytes(), and the result >> may be a very embarassing security exposure. >> >> How about prandom32_get_bytes_state() and prandom32_get_bytes() instead? > > I agree with your suggestion. I'll rename them and try again. > > By the way, should we also rename the existing random32() and > prandom32() in the future? > > Specifically, rename random32() to prandom32(), and prandom32() to > prandom32_state(). As a result, it will cause a little confusion > between old and new prandom32(). But the number of arguments will > be changed from 3 to 2, so gcc can detect the misuse of prandom32().
Oops, I intended to say "the number of arguments of prandom32() will be changed from 1 to 0". And I realized that the exisiting srandom32() also should be renamed to sprandom32().
| |