From: Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>
To: David Wagner <daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Continuing /dev/random problems with 2.4
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:01:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020202030129.B20865@havoc.gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020201031744.A32127@asooo.flowerfire.com> <20020201124300.G763@lynx.adilger.int> <3C5AF6B5.5080105@zytor.com> <20020201152829.A2497@havoc.gtf.org> <a3ffls$tsv$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: <a3ffls$tsv$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>; from daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu on Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:33:48AM +0000
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:33:48AM +0000, David Wagner wrote:
> Hmm. I don't quite follow your reasoning. Does the kernel already
> perform fitness tests on random data from other drivers? I don't
> think so.
>
> The i810 rng seems much less prone to entropy failure than the data
> currently collected from I/O events. Why are fitness tests for it more
> important than for the existing entropy sources that are currently in
> the kernel?
>
> What am I missing?
The "random" data from the RNG might suddenly become non-random. If you
are telling the system you are trusting this source, you better make
sure it truly is random.
RNGs are different than other entropy sources in the kernel because it's
a black box.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-02 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-01 9:17 Ken Brownfield
2002-02-01 16:36 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-02-01 17:00 ` Ken Brownfield
2002-02-01 16:53 ` Robert Love
2002-02-01 17:01 ` Ken Brownfield
2002-02-04 9:28 ` Sean Hunter
2002-02-01 18:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-02-01 19:38 ` Ken Brownfield
2002-02-01 19:57 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-02-01 20:22 ` Ken Brownfield
2002-02-01 19:43 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-02-01 20:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-02-01 20:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-02 1:33 ` David Wagner
2002-02-02 8:01 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2002-02-04 22:13 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-04 22:37 ` Roland Dreier
2002-02-04 22:45 ` Robert Love
2002-02-05 23:02 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-05 23:17 ` Robert Love
2002-02-06 16:16 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-06 16:31 ` Need a clew WRT fig2dev Kirk Reiser
2002-02-06 16:42 ` Adrian Bunk
2002-02-06 20:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-09 19:45 ` Continuing /dev/random problems with 2.4 Nix N. Nix
2002-02-02 8:54 ` Kai Henningsen
2002-02-02 11:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-02-03 12:51 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2002-02-01 19:50 ` Robert Love
2002-02-01 19:52 ` Ken Brownfield
2002-02-01 20:23 ` Peter Monta
2002-02-01 20:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-02-01 20:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-01 20:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-01 20:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-02-01 20:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-01 20:56 ` Peter Monta
2002-02-01 22:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-02-01 23:27 ` Peter Monta
2002-02-02 1:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-02-02 2:05 ` David Wagner
2002-02-02 21:02 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-02-02 3:30 ` Peter Monta
2002-02-04 21:53 Ishan O. Jayawardena
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020202030129.B20865@havoc.gtf.org \
--to=garzik@havoc.gtf.org \
--cc=daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®