![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Horst von Brand wrote: > Julien TINNES <julien.tinnes.NOSPAM@francetelecom.REMOVE.com> said: > >>Not very important but ((get_random_int() % 4096) << 4) could be >>optimized into get_random_int() & 0xFFF0. > > > Check first if the compiler doesn't do it by itself. The compiler cannot guess that get_random_int() gives a random result. %4096 and & 0xFFF is'nt the same operation. But (get_random_int() % 4096) and (get_random_int() & 0xFFF) gives the same result: a random number between 0 and 4095, without loss of entropy because 0xFFF has no 0 bit. -- Julien TINNES - & france telecom - R&D Division/MAPS/NSS Research Engineer - Internet/Intranet Security GPG: C050 EF1A 2919 FD87 57C4 DEDD E778 A9F0 14B9 C7D6 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||