From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:51:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:50:54 -0400 Received: from shed.alex.org.uk ([195.224.53.219]:9959 "HELO shed.alex.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:50:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:50:52 +0100 From: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Reply-To: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel To: David Schwartz , Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Subject: RE: Entropy from net devices - keyboard & IDE just as 'bad' [was Re: [PATCH] let Net Devices feed Entropy, updated (1/2)] Message-ID: <606175155.998387452@[169.254.45.213]> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0b3 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David, > Alex Bligh wrote: > >> Many non-i386 platforms have more finely grained timers than 1 jiffie. >> The problem is the code doesn't use them. So my point is, it seems >> illogical to throw stones at (often) theoretical issues with Robert's >> patch, when people's energy would be better diverted to help fix up >> hole in the current implementation. > > I don't understand the connection. Either Robert's patch is good or it's > bad. If there are other problems, then we can address those too. But to > say that Robert's patch is bad because it doesn't fix the most important > problem that you can think of doesn't make any sense. Every problem > should be fixed, and if Robert has a patch to fix one of them, then > that's one less. > > You can certainly advise people to work on the most serious problems. But > you most certainly can't say that someone shouldn't work on X because Y is > more important. For clarity, I'm saying Robert's patch is GOOD, and those who are trying to point out what I consider to be extremely theoretical weakness it introduces into /dev/random (and then, only when config'd on), should instead spend their attention looking at miuch more serious issues in the algorithm elsewhere if they are that worried, rather than attacking something which is useful. To make an analogy, Robert is suggesting changing the 9 cylinder lock on the back door of a house to a 7 cylinder lock, which is much easier to operate, but perhaps slightly less secure. (well, to be precise, he's advocating giving the house own the OPTION to do this). However, the front door is wide open, swinging in the wind, with no lock on at all. And people are worried about Robert's patch. Doesn't make much sense... -- Alex Bligh