From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Pseudo-random number generator Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:43:13 +0100 Message-ID: <200612071943.14153.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1164979155.5882.23.camel@bender> <200612071606.33951.arnd@arndb.de> <1165504796.5607.17.camel@bender> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-crypto , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:63865 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1163183AbWLGSnV (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:43:21 -0500 To: Jan Glauber In-Reply-To: <1165504796.5607.17.camel@bender> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 07 December 2006 16:19, Jan Glauber wrote: > Hm, why is /dev/urandom implemented in the kernel? > > It could be done completely in user-space (like libica already does) > but I think having a device node where you can read from is the simplest > implementation. Also, if we can solve the security flaw we could use it > as replacement for /dev/urandom. urandom is more useful, because can't be implemented in user space at all. /dev/urandom will use the real randomness from the kernel as a seed without depleting the entropy pool. How does your /dev/prandom device compare to /dev/urandom performance-wise? If it can be made to use the same input data and it turns out to be significantly faster, I can see some use for it. Arnd <><