From: Bob Beck Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:56:03 -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-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:40834 "EHLO mail-ie0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755360AbaGQT4Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:56:24 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rp18so3666545iec.12 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:56:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140717173433.GQ1491@thunk.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hey Ted, one more nit. Yes, I have a bicycle too.. I see here we add a flag to make it block - whereas it seems most other system calls that can block the flag is added to make it not block (I.E. O_NONBLOCK, etc. etc.) Would it make more sense to invert this so it was more like the typical convention in other system calls? 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