Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:50:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:50:46 -0500 Received: from mail-out.chello.nl ([213.46.240.7]:10275 "EHLO amsmta02-svc.chello.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:50:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:27:43 +0100 (CET) From: Igmar Palsenberg To: David Ford cc: Jeff Garzik , 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: <3A295F27.D356DC91@linux.com> 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 > > Making /dev/random block if the amount requirements aren't met makes sense > > to me. If I request x bytes of random stuff, and get less, I probably > > reread /dev/random. If it's entropy pool is exhausted it makes sense to be > > to block. > > This is the job of the program accessing /dev/random. Open it blocking or > non-blocking and read until you satisfy your read buffer. Agree, if randomness is guaranteed in that case. I usually bail out in that case. Time to change that :) > -d 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/