[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24059874.5WizEqNrfz@tauon.atsec.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:32:13 +0200
From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@...tls.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>,
Jason Cooper <cryptography@...edaemon.net>,
John Denker <jsd@...n.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] /dev/random - a new approach
Am Dienstag, 21. Juni 2016, 09:12:07 schrieb Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos:
Hi Nikos,
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
wrote:
> >> Personally, I don't really use /dev/random, nor would I recommend it
> >> for most application programmers. At this point, getrandom(2) really
> >> is the preferred interface unless you have some very specialized
> >> needs.
> >
> > I fully agree. But there are use cases for /dev/random, notably as a seed
> > source for other DRNG.
>
> Is that really the case? I believe all DRNG's use /dev/urandom anyway
> for seeding since they cannot afford indeterminate blocking. It would
> be a gain for everyone if /dev/random was the same as /dev/urandom in
> Linux.
For standard approaches, this is true. But there are regulations, notably in
the German realm, /dev/random shall be used, at least partially (see AIS
20/31).
Ciao
Stephan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists