[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules |
Date: |
Sat, 30 May 2020 15:43:20 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 |
On 5/30/20 5:58 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> There are several problems with this commit:
> - It causes a Continuous Integration failure.
> - It partially overlaps with the crypto/gc-random module.
> - The ChangeLog entry lists files that were not committed.
> - It conflicts with the declaration on Solaris 11.3 and newer.
> - It adds a new header file, <sys/random.h>, but without the usual
> header file tests in C and C++.
Thanks for fixing most of those problems.
The remaining issue is "partial overlap with crypto/gc-random". To fix that, I
am thinking that getrandom should remove its dependency on crypto/gc-random, and
should simply use "/dev/urandom" for the nonce device without worrying about
whether crypto/gc-random would define NAME_OF_NONCE_DEVICE to "/dev/urandom".
This should work on all current porting targets and should simplify maintenance
by lessening dependencies on the crypto/gc-random module, which pulls in several
other modules that some packages won't want to bother with.
- [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules, Paul Eggert, 2020/05/25
- Re: [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/30
- Re: [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: getrandom vs. crypto/gc-random, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/31
- Re: getrandom vs. crypto/gc-random, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/31
- Re: getrandom vs. crypto/gc-random, Jeffrey Walton, 2020/05/31
- Re: getrandom vs. crypto/gc-random, Simon Josefsson, 2020/05/31
- Re: getrandom vs. crypto/gc-random, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/31
Re: [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/30
Re: [PATCH] getentropy, getrandom: new modules, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/30