[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random()
    On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 14:59, Andreas Dilger wrote:
    > On Aug 20, 2004 13:59 -0400, Jean-Luc Cooke wrote:
    > > Is there a reason why get_random_bytes() is unsuitable?
    > >
    > > Keeping the number of PRNGs in the kernel to a minimum should a goal we can
    > > all share.
    > For some uses a decent PRNG is enough, and the overhead of get_random_bytes()
    > is much too high.

    Agreed. I have numbers to support the above.

    > We've needed something like this for a long time (something
    > that gives decenly uniform numbers) and hacks to use useconds/cycles/etc do
    > not cut it. I for one welcome a simple in-kernel interface to
    > e.g. get_urandom_bytes() (or net_random() as this is maybe inappropriately
    > called) that is only pseudo-random but fast and efficient.

    One problem is that AIUI, we incur this overhead even if a hardware RNG
    is present. This does not seem right. Hardware RNGs are increasingly
    common, Linux supports hardware RNGs from AMD, Intel, and VIA.


    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 14:05    [W:0.044 / U:1.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site