[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACXcFm=jK=DuzaJFwEBK58wYJ96PSS317uOtc5BieXwjy4oVnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:33:13 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>
To: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPU Jitter RNG: inclusion into kernel crypto API and /dev/random
Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de> wrote:
> [quoting me]
>> ...your code is basically, with 64-bit x:
>>
>> for( i=0, x = 0 ; i < 64; i++, x =rotl(x) )
>> x |= bit()
>
> Why not declare some 64-bit constant C with a significant
>>number of bits set and do this:
>>
>> for( i=0, x = 0 ; i < 64; i++, x =rotl(x) ) // same loop control
>> if( bit() ) x ^= C ;
>>
>>This makes every output bit depend on many input bits
>>and costs almost nothing extra.
> Ok, let me play a bit with that. Maybe I can add another flag to the
> allocation function so that the caller can decide whether to use that.
> If the user is another RNG, you skip that mixing function, otherwise you
> should take it.
I'd say just do it. It is cheap enough and using it does no harm
even where it is not strictly needed. Adding a flag just gives the
calling code a chance to get it wrong. Better not to take that risk
if you don't have to.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists