Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:56:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:56:04 -0500 Received: from mail-out.chello.nl ([213.46.240.7]:59187 "EHLO amsmta05-svc.chello.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:55:49 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:32:54 +0100 (CET) From: Igmar Palsenberg To: Jeff Garzik cc: Matthew Kirkwood , folkert@vanheusden.com, "Theodore Y Ts'o" , Kernel devel list , vpnd@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: /dev/random probs in 2.4test(12-pre3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > For a blocking fd, read(2) has always blocked until some data is > available. There has never been a guarantee, for any driver, that > a read(2) will return the full amount of bytes requested. I know. Still leaves lot's of people that assume that reading /dev/random will return data, or will block. I've seen lots of programs that will assume that if we request x bytes from /dev/random it will return x bytes. > There is no need to document this... man read(2) ;-) > > Jeff Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/