From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random() Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:59:56 -0600 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040820185956.GV8967@schnapps.adilger.int> References: <20040812104835.3b179f5a@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040820175952.GI5806@certainkey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="o0y1lerN6xYE2ROn" Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "David S. Miller" , Alan Cox , "Theodore Ts'o" , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Jean-Luc Cooke Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040820175952.GI5806@certainkey.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --o0y1lerN6xYE2ROn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 20, 2004 13:59 -0400, Jean-Luc Cooke wrote: > Is there a reason why get_random_bytes() is unsuitable? >=20 > Keeping the number of PRNGs in the kernel to a minimum should a goal we c= an > all share. For some uses a decent PRNG is enough, and the overhead of get_random_bytes= () is much too high. We've needed something like this for a long time (someth= ing that gives decenly uniform numbers) and hacks to use useconds/cycles/etc do not cut it. I for one welcome a simple in-kernel interface to e.g. get_urandom_bytes() (or net_random() as this is maybe inappropriately called) that is only pseudo-random but fast and efficient. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://members.shaw.ca/adilger/ http://members.shaw.ca/golinux/ --o0y1lerN6xYE2ROn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBJkospIg59Q01vtYRAl5VAKCVp4g4/om0QnxQyojGH+LNyAp7kgCfVgWa f2ociyLHiIpWvcmGR1Lnb7Y= =xfaR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --o0y1lerN6xYE2ROn--