"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2021-11-18 at 07:19:08, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Presumably csprn_bytes() grabs bytes from underlying mechanism in >> smaller chunk, but would not return until it fills the buffer---ah, >> your "make sure our buffer handling is correct" is primarily about >> the check that we get full 1k bytes in the loop? We ask 1k chunk 64 >> times and we must get full 1k chunk every time? > > Yes, that's what we'd expect to happen. > >> What I was wondering about was the other half of the check, ensuring >> all buckets[] are painted that gave us the cute 10^-100 math. > > Say the buffer handling is incorrect and we read only a few bytes > instead of the full 1 KiB. Then we'll end up filling only some of the > buckets, and the check will fail much of the time, because we won't get > sufficient number of random bytes to fill all the buckets. ... meaning (64 * a few bytes) is small enough such that some slots in buckets[] will be left untouched (and the remainder of 1kB is untouched --- but the buffer[] is not initialized in any way, so it's not like such an "oops, we only fed a few bytes" bug would leave the rest to NUL or anything)? > The check is that we got enough data that looks like random bytes over > the course of our requests. If the check were doing so, yes, I would have understood (whether I agreed with it or not), but the check is "if we taint each and every bucket[] even once, we are OK", not "bucket[] should be more or less evenly touched", and that is why I do/did not understand the test.
