From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263221AbTJPXfl (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:35:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263224AbTJPXfl (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:35:41 -0400 Received: from vladimir.pegasys.ws ([64.220.160.58]:59654 "EHLO vladimir.pegasys.ws") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263221AbTJPXfj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:35:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:35:33 -0700 From: jw schultz To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] frandom - fast random generator module Message-ID: <20031016233533.GD29279@pegasys.ws> Mail-Followup-To: jw schultz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3F8E552B.3010507@users.sf.net> <3F8E58A9.20005@cyberone.com.au> <3F8E70E0.7070000@users.sf.net> <3F8E8101.70009@pobox.com> <20031016173135.GL5725@waste.org> <3F8F23BE.7020703@users.sf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F8F23BE.7020703@users.sf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Message-Flag: This Outlook installation has been found to be susceptible to misuse. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:26AM +0200, Eli Billauer wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > >On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 07:29:05AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > > >>So, given that trend and also given the existing /dev/[u]random, I > >>disagree completely: /dev/frandom is the perfect example of something > >>that should _not_ be in the kernel. If you want /dev/urandom faster, > >>then solve _that_ problem. Don't try to solve a /dev/urandom problem by > >>creating something totally new. > >> > >> > > > >I have some performance fixes for /dev/urandom, but there's a fair > >amount of other cleanup that has to go in first. > > > ... and this reminded me that I originally wanted to patch random.c, and > change the algorithm to the faster one. To my best understanding, there > would be no degradation in random quality, assuming I would do it > correctly (and not being hung for the nerve to do it). But that's the > problem: What if I got something wrong? > > If a hardware device driver is buggy, you usually know about it sooner > or later. If an RNG has a rare bug, or an architecture-dependent flaw, > it's much harder to notice. If the RNG starts to repeat itself, you > won't know about it, unless you happened to test exactly that data. The > algorithm may be perfect, but a silly bug can blow it all. > > So personally, I wouldn't touch the urandom code, not even the smallest > fix. Instead, I decided to write another RNG, which doesn't interfere > with the existing one. The only way to be confident about it, is to give > it mileage. And that means making it available for broad use. > > Which is why I originally offered frandom as a supplement, not an > alternative. Sounds like a case for having a config choice for which urandom code to build in. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt