lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] random.c bugfix
On Oct 27, 2001  06:21 +0200, Ren? Scharfe wrote:
> there's a bug in random.c, I think. The third argument of
> extract_entropy() is supposed to be the number of _bytes_ to extract,
> while nwords contains the number of _bytes_ we want. This seems to lead
^^^^^ words, I think you mean ;-)
> us to transfer n bytes of entropy and credit for n*4 bytes.

OK, my bad. At least the random variable-name cleanups let you SEE where
we are supposed to be using word sizes and byte sizes. Even you were
confused about it ;-)

> --- linux-2.4.14-pre2/drivers/char/random.c Fri Oct 26 23:07:16 2001
> +++ linux-2.4.14-pre2-rs/drivers/char/random.c Sat Oct 27 05:36:23 2001
> @@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@
> r == sec_random_state ? "secondary" : "unknown",
> r->entropy_count, nbytes * 8);
>
> - extract_entropy(random_state, tmp, nwords, 0);
> + extract_entropy(random_state, tmp, nwords * 4, 0);
> add_entropy_words(r, tmp, nwords);
> credit_entropy_store(r, nwords * 32);
> }

The patch looks correct, though.

> The rest of the patch is just there for consistency and because it just
> looks better to me. Those sizeof()s were introduced in kernel 2.4.13, I
> just can't imagine why. Care to explain anyone?

> @@ -1260,9 +1260,9 @@
> if (r->extract_count > 1024) {
> DEBUG_ENT("reseeding %s with %d from primary\n",
> r == sec_random_state ? "secondary" : "unknown",
> - sizeof(tmp) * 8);
> - extract_entropy(random_state, tmp, sizeof(tmp), 0);
> - add_entropy_words(r, tmp, sizeof(tmp) / 4);
> + TMP_BUF_SIZE * 32);
> + extract_entropy(random_state, tmp, TMP_BUF_SIZE * 4, 0);
> + add_entropy_words(r, tmp, TMP_BUF_SIZE);
> r->extract_count = 0;
> }
> }

Well, this is a matter of taste. With my code, it is correct regardless
of how tmp is declared, while with your code you assume tmp is TMP_BUF_SIZE
words, and that it is declared with a 4-byte type. Both ways are resolved
at compile time, so using "sizeof(tmp)/4" or "sizeof(tmp)*8" doesn't add
any run-time overhead.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, if Linus and/or Alan have a
preference to do it one way or the other.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert

-
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 13:11    [W:0.085 / U:4.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site