From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263215AbTJPVab (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:30:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263221AbTJPVab (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:30:31 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:51385 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263215AbTJPVaa (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:30:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:30:23 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Eli Billauer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Mosberger-Tang Subject: Re: [RFC] frandom - fast random generator module Message-ID: <20031016213023.GU5725@waste.org> References: <3F8EF17A.2040502@users.sf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F8EF17A.2040502@users.sf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:28:58PM +0200, Eli Billauer wrote: > Allow me to supply a couple facts about frandom: > > * It's not a "crappy" RNG. Its RC4 origins and the fact, that it has > passed tests indicate the opposite. A fast RNG doesn't necessarily mean > a bad one. I doubt if any test will tell the difference between frandom > and any other good RNG. You're most welcome to try. > > * Frandom is written completely in C. On an i686, gcc compiles the > critical part to 26 assembly instructions per byte, and I doubt if any > hand assembly would help significantly. The algorithms is clean and > simple, and the compiler performs well with it. The output hash for /dev/random would use RC4 or the like except for historical political reasons. I'm hoping to move it in that direction, but adding yet another cryptographic algorithm outside cryptoapi is a step in the wrong direction right now. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting