[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:0.048 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site