[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a24804730805171254i2a37da61mb47280db7b330ed5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 12:54:02 -0700
From: "Chris Peterson" <cpeterso@...terso.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Jeff Garzik" <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, tpm@...horst.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] drivers/net: remove network drivers' last few uses of IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM
> Would people be ok with kernel auto-feeding for /dev/urandom only? I've
> been pondering that and I think that would work just as well in practice
> given the facts above. Then you would still only get blocking
> /dev/random with the user daemon, but that won't matter because all
> the usual users don't rely on thatanyways.
Andi, can you please clarify what you mean by "auto-feeding
/dev/urandom only" and "only get blocking /dev/random with the user
daemon"? Are you suggesting that the kernel provides /dev/urandom and
a userspace daemon (e.g. EGD) provides /dev/random?
Also, if crypto apps like ssh and openssl use on "insecure"
/dev/urandom, then who actually relies on /dev/random? For comparison,
FreeBSD does not even (AFAIK) have /dev/urandom. FreeBSD's /dev/random
is nonblocking (like Linux's /dev/urandom) and includes network
entropy.
chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists