[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional?
David Lang  wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> 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().
>if the number is truely random then there should be a (small but finite)
>chance that any two reads will return the same data. counting on a random
>number to be unique is not a good idea.

Have you ever worked out how small a number 2^-64 is?
You might be surprised. For most practical purposes, 2^-64 is
effectively zero.

If you see a 64-bit values repeat twice in a row when querying a
cryptographic pseudorandom generator, the crypto-PRNG is almost surely
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:0.161 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site