Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional?

[Jamie Lokier]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure there was never a time when entropy
> > accounting wasn't racy let alone wrong, SMP or no (fixed in -mm, thank
> > you).
> 
> Well is has been argued that the lack of locking in the random driver is a
> "feature", adding a little more unpredictability.

Dodgy.  Does lack of locking mean users can trick /dev/random into
thinking it has more entropy than it does?  Or let them detect the
time when /dev/random gains entropy, without reading it?

> Now I don't know if that makes sense or not, but the locking certainly has
> a cost.  If it doesn't actually fix anything then that cost becomes a
> waste.

Per-cpu random pools, perhaps :)

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/