Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:24:49 +0100 | From | Dominik Brodowski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] random: re-add removed comment about get_random_{u32,u64} reseeding |
| |
Am Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:23:36PM -0600 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld: > The comment about get_random_{u32,u64}() not invoking reseeding got > added in an unrelated commit, that then was recently reverted. So this > adds that little comment snippet back. > > Cc: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net> > Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> > --- > drivers/char/random.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c > index 1d7aac2a9600..82e37d7dd9f1 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/random.c > +++ b/drivers/char/random.c > @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static void _warn_unseeded_randomness(const char *func_name, void *caller, void > * into the given buffer or as a return value. This is equivalent to > * a read from /dev/urandom. The integer family of functions may be > * higher performance for one-off random integers, because they do a > - * bit of buffering. > + * bit of buffering and do not invoke reseeding. > * > *********************************************************************/
Actually, that seems wrong, as all these functions may call _get_random_bytes(), which may invoke crng_make_state(), which may invoke crng_reseed(). And it might be worthwhile to clarify that it's only get_random_bytes() that does not do the bit of buffering.
Thanks, Dominik
| |