Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

[Bob Beck]

Hey Ted, one more nit. Yes, I have a bicycle too..

I see here we add a flag to make it block - whereas it seems most
other system calls that can block the flag is
added to make it not block (I.E. O_NONBLOCK, etc. etc.)  Would it make
more sense to invert this so it was more
like the typical convention in other system calls?


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
>> Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
>> a way to influence the various libc people to
>> ensure they manage to provide a getentropy().
>
> I don't anticipate that to be a problem.  And before they do, and/or
> if you are dealing with a system where the kernel has been upgraded,
> but not libc, you have your choice of either sticking with the
> binary_sysctl approach, or calling getrandom directly using the
> syscall method; and in that case, whether we use getrandom() or
> provide an exact getentropy() replacement system call isn't that much
> difference, since you'd have to have Linux-specific workaround code
> anyway....
>
>                                 - Ted
--
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/