[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV3pAFk-a+RrLzwQ0ct0dWoBsVdSVrHCMRD1n564YpUmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:37:34 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...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 2:28 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:35:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Can we please have a mode in which getrandom(2) can neither block nor
>> fail? If that gets added, then this can replace things like AT_RANDOM.
>
> AT_RANDOM has been around for a long time; it's not something we can
> remove.
I'm not suggesting removing AT_RANDOM. To the contrary, I'm
suggesting that libraries that need to seed some kind of
non-cryptographic, non-security-related RNG could use getrandom(2)
with appropriate flags rather than screwing around with getpid,
clock_gettime, etc.
For example:
unsigned int seed;
getrandom(&seed, sizeof(seed), GRND_BEST_EFFORT); /* Never fails on
new enough kernels */
srand(seed);
No error checking, no weird cases, and if the RNG isn't well seeded,
then I tried my best.
--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