From: Bob Beck Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:45:56 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1405588695-12014-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20140717161215.GA14951@infradead.org> <20140717170115.GO1491@thunk.org> <20140717173433.GQ1491@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Bob Beck , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel , linux-abi , linux-crypto Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:60002 "EHLO mail-ie0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750926AbaGQRqS (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:46:18 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id tr6so3423208ieb.21 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:46:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140717173433.GQ1491@thunk.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: we have diffs pending that will do the syscall method until we start to see it in libc :) So basically we're going to put that in right away :) On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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