[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] frandom - fast random generator module
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?

Well you can't just drop SHA, that's needed for mixing purposes. The
designs in the literature use both a secure hash and a cipher.

> 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.

In fact there are silly bugs yet to be fixed.

Matt Mackall : : Linux development and consulting
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.059 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site