From: Stephan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 3/4] Linux Random Number Generator Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:37:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1780567.qGdv4EjEMp@positron.chronox.de> References: <3910055.ntkqcq1Chb@positron.chronox.de> <150039607.torZXMN7kc@positron.chronox.de> <20170718085212.GB25267@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Arnd Bergmann , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170718085212.GB25267@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:52:12 CEST schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: Hi Greg, > > > I have stated the core concerns I have with random.c in [1]. To remedy > > these core concerns, major changes to random.c are needed. With the past > > experience, I would doubt that I get the changes into random.c. > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg26316.html > > Evolution is the correct way to do this, kernel development relies on > that. We don't do the "use this totally different and untested file > instead!" method. I am not sure I understand your reply. The offered patch set does not rip out existing code. It adds a replacement implementation which can be enabled during compile time. Yet it is even disabled per default (and thus the legacy code is compiled). I see such a development approach in numerous different kernel core areas: memory allocators (SLAB, SLOB, SLUB), process schedulers, IRQ schedulers. What is so different for the realm of RNGs? Ciao Stephan