From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:34:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20140717173433.GQ1491@thunk.org> References: <1405588695-12014-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20140717161215.GA14951@infradead.org> <20140717170115.GO1491@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel , linux-abi , linux-crypto To: Bob Beck Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:41429 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751084AbaGQRen (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:34:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: > Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was > a way to influence the various libc people to > ensure they manage to provide a getentropy(). I don't anticipate that to be a problem. And before they do, and/or if you are dealing with a system where the kernel has been upgraded, but not libc, you have your choice of either sticking with the binary_sysctl approach, or calling getrandom directly using the syscall method; and in that case, whether we use getrandom() or provide an exact getentropy() replacement system call isn't that much difference, since you'd have to have Linux-specific workaround code anyway.... - Ted