Evgeniy,
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:46:08AM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > Since pseudo-randomness affects both folded and not folded hash
> > > distribution, it can not end up in different results.
> >
> > Yes it would, so to rule out pseudo-random effects the pseudo-
> > random number generator must be removed.
> >
> > >
> > > You are right that having test with 2^48 values is really interesting,
> > > but it will take ages on my test machine :)
> >
> > Try a usable subset; no pseudo-random number generator.
>
> I've run it for 2^30 - the same result: folded and not folded Jenkins
> hash behave the same and still both results produce exactly the same
> artifacts compared to XOR hash.
But not without the pseudo-random number generation... ?
>
> Btw, XOR hash, as completely stateless, can be used to show how
> Linux pseudo-random generator works for given subset - it's average of
> distribution is very good.
But its distribution might auto-correlate with the Jenkins function.
The only way to be sure is to remove the pseudo-random number generator.
Just try incrementing from, say, 10.0.0.0:10000 up, resetting port number
to 10000 at 16000, and just incrementing the IP address when the port
number wraps, instead of pseudo-random, through 2^30 loops for both.
If the same artifacts emerge, I give in.
Can you show the same artifacts for jenkins_3word?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
