[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150924200032.GB2835@unpythonic.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:00:32 -0500
From: Jeff Epler <jepler@...ythonic.net>
To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make /dev/urandom scalable
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 03:11:23PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> I will make a point however to run some tests over the weekend on a
> current kernel version (4.2.1), with the current dieharder version I
> have available (3.31.1).
Please report your findings. If urandom is worse than AES_OFB in
statistical tests, we need to know about it.
I'm an hour into some test-to-failure runs of diehard_count_1s_str on
various RNGs -- urandom, AES_OFB, mt19937_1999, and rand48. So far at
psamples >=29000 none have failed, so there's no result to report. (test
8 was chosen by mere human pseudorandomness; hey, it finds in <2s that
RANDU is a flawed generator)
dieharder -d 8 -g 205 -Y 2 -k 2
dieharder -d 8 -g 200 -Y 2 -k 2
dieharder -d 8 -g 14 -Y 2 -k 2
dieharder -d 8 -g 22 -Y 2 -k 2
If the results are other than "both urandom and aes_ofb were running
when I had to reboot my laptop", I'll report my results as well.
Jeff
--
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