On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:06:43AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 10:16:05AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 01:42:00PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:26:47PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > The distinction between /dev/random and /dev/urandom boils down to one
> > > > word: paranoia. If you are not paranoid enough to mistrust your
> > > > network, then /dev/random IS NOT FOR YOU. Use /dev/urandom.
> > > 
> > > But currently, people who use /dev/urandom to obtain low-quality
> > > entropy do a DoS for the paranoid people.
> > 
> > Not true, as I've already pointed out in this thread.
> 
> I must have missed this. Can you please explain again? For a layman it
> looks like a paranoid application cannot read 500 Bytes from
> /dev/random without blocking if some other application has previously
> read 10 Kilobytes from /dev/urandom.

/dev/urandom always leaves enough entropy in the input pool for
/dev/random to reseed. Thus, as long as entropy is coming in, it is
not possible for /dev/urandom readers to starve /dev/random readers.
But /dev/random readers may still block temporarily and they should
damn well expect to block if they read 500 bytes out of a 512 byte
pool.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/