[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXrHOJkEvYv8VGaNNJSFarAaD7E7G7myOvWo5SG4m4qKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:53:53 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Satoru Takeuchi <satoru.takeuchi@...il.com>,
ingo.tuchscherer@...ibm.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans-Georg Markgraf <MGRF@...ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/03]: hwrng: khwrngd derating per device
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:41:10AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de> wrote:
>> >
>> > This patch introduces a derating factor to struct hwrng for
>> > the random bits going into the kernel input pool, and a common
>> > default derating for drivers which do not specify one.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > drivers/char/hw_random/core.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>> > include/linux/hw_random.h | 3 +++
>> > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > --- linux/include/linux/hw_random.h.orig
>> > +++ linux/include/linux/hw_random.h
>> > @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
>> > * @read: New API. drivers can fill up to max bytes of data
>> > * into the buffer. The buffer is aligned for any type.
>> > * @priv: Private data, for use by the RNG driver.
>> > + * @derating: Estimation of true entropy in RNG's bitstream
>> > + * (per mill).
>>
>> I'll bikeshed again: this is a rating, not a *de*rating. Higher =
>> more confidence, at least assuming the comment is right.
>>
> You're right. Would anyone object to call it "quality", as in RX signal quality?
> In context of a random source that is pretty accurate, I'd say. Other opinions?
I'm okay with "quality", although I'm still partial to "entropy_per_1000bits".
--Andy
--
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