[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:43:13AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2003 23:38 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > a) extract_entropy (pool->lock)
> >
> > For nitpickers, there remains a vanishingly small possibility that
> > two readers could get identical results from the pool by hitting a
> > window immediately after reseeding, after accounting, _and_ after
> > feedback mixing.
> It wasn't even vanishingly small... We had a problem in our code where
> two readers got the same 64-bit value calling get_random_bytes(), and
> we were depending on this 64-bit value being unique. This problem was
> fixed by putting a spinlock around the call to get_random_bytes().

Was this before or after the locking was added in test2-mm3 or so?

Matt Mackall : : of or relating to the moon
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 13:47    [W:0.179 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site