Re: [PATCH RFC v0] random: block in /dev/urandom

Finn Thain
2022-02-11T22:10:55Z

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

> + * Reading from /dev/random and /dev/urandom both the same effect as
> + * calling getrandom(2) with flags=0. In earlier versions, however,
> + * they each had vastly different semantics and should therefore be
> + * avoided to prevent backwards compatibility issues.

If the end result "should be avoided", then why bother? IOW, how does this
improve the ABI? I know you said it's a "panacea" but I'm afraid that's
not clear to me and the patch description doesn't explain it.