Re: [RFC] enhanced version of net_random()

[Ben Greear]

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> While doing the network emulator, I discovered that the default net_random()
> is too stupid, and get_random_bytes() is more than needed. Rather than put
> another function in just for sch_netem, how about making net_random() smarter?
> The tin-hat crowd already replace net_random() with get_random_bytes anyway.
>
> Here is a proposed alternative to use a longer period PRNG for net_random().
> The choice of TT800 was because it was freely available, had a long period,
> was fast and relatively small footprint. The existing net_random() was not
> really thread safe, but was immune to thread corruption. 

Is it really worth the extra spin lock & math?  Maybe we could have a
net_more_random() method instead that encompasses this improved random logic?

Ben

--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

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