On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 19:43 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 07 December 2006 16:19, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > Hm, why is /dev/urandom implemented in the kernel?
> >
> > It could be done completely in user-space (like libica already does)
> > but I think having a device node where you can read from is the simplest
> > implementation. Also, if we can solve the security flaw we could use it
> > as replacement for /dev/urandom.
>
> urandom is more useful, because can't be implemented in user space at
> all. /dev/urandom will use the real randomness from the kernel as a seed
> without depleting the entropy pool. How does your /dev/prandom device
> compare to /dev/urandom performance-wise? If it can be made to use
> the same input data and it turns out to be significantly faster, I can
> see some use for it.
The performance of the PRNG without constantly adding entropy is up tp
factor 40 faster than /dev/urandom ;- , depending on the block size of
the read.
With the current patch it performs not so well because of the STCKE loop
before every KMC. I think about removing them and changing the
periodically seed to use get_random_bytes instead.
Jan
-
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]
