On Wednesday 31 December 2003 07:31 pm, Rob Love wrote:
<snip>
> This is definitely an interesting problem space.
>
> I agree wrt just inventing consecutive numbers. If there was a nice way
> to trivially generate a random and unique number from some
> device-inherent information, that would be nice.
>
> Rob Love
my first thought was hardware serial numbers, but i'm guessing they mostly
don't exist based on the discomfort caused by the pentium 3 serial number in
the past. my second thought was raw latency. in the real world, 2 identical
devices of any nature are going to respond electrically at different rates. i
kind of stole the concept from what i read about the i810 rng... quantum
differences can distinguish between 2 of anything, and based on the response
time, 'cookies' can be written out to keep them separately ID'd. some devices
will get slower over time, e.g. increasing error rates and aging silicon will
throw the 'cookie' off, so you'd re-calibrate every so often, like on a
reboot. those are rare for some of us ;)
the big IF: can you measure that with enough precision to at least decrease
the probablity of collision?
--
Rob Couto
[email protected]
Rules for computing success:
1) Attitude is no substitute for competence.
2) Ease of use is no substitute for power.
3) Safety matters; use a static-free hammer.
--
Since we're moving toward treating device numbers as unique handles for
devices in a system, why can't we just dynamically allocate them like
process ID's? As each device driver loads and registers with the kernel,
it can request a device number and the kernel can assign the next
available one.
Tyler
Rob wrote:
>On Wednesday 31 December 2003 07:31 pm, Rob Love wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>This is definitely an interesting problem space.
>>
>>I agree wrt just inventing consecutive numbers. If there was a nice way
>>to trivially generate a random and unique number from some
>>device-inherent information, that would be nice.
>>
>> Rob Love
>>
>>
>
>my first thought was hardware serial numbers, but i'm guessing they mostly
>don't exist based on the discomfort caused by the pentium 3 serial number in
>the past. my second thought was raw latency. in the real world, 2 identical
>devices of any nature are going to respond electrically at different rates. i
>kind of stole the concept from what i read about the i810 rng... quantum
>differences can distinguish between 2 of anything, and based on the response
>time, 'cookies' can be written out to keep them separately ID'd. some devices
>will get slower over time, e.g. increasing error rates and aging silicon will
>throw the 'cookie' off, so you'd re-calibrate every so often, like on a
>reboot. those are rare for some of us ;)
>
>the big IF: can you measure that with enough precision to at least decrease
>the probablity of collision?
>
>
>