lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140717170115.GO1491@thunk.org> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:01:16 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-abi@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, beck@...nbsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:12:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:18:15AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > The getrandom(2) system call was requested by the LibreSSL Portable > > developers. It is analoguous to the getentropy(2) system call in > > OpenBSD. > > What's the reason to not implement exactly the same system call OpenBSD > does? Having slightly different names and semantics for the same > functionality is highly annoying. The getrandom(2) system call is a superset of getentropy(2). When we add the support for this into glibc, it won't be terribly difficult nor annoying to drop the following in alongside the standard support needed for any new system call: int getentropy(void *buf, size_t buflen) { int ret; ret = getentropy(buf, buflen, 0); return (ret > 0) ? 0 : ret; } The reason for the additional flags is that I'm trying to solve more problems than just getentropy()'s raison d'etre. The discussion of this is in the commit description; let me know if there bits that I could make clearer. Cheers, - Ted -- 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