On 8/8/2023 4:04 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 01:28:50PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> I see you're moving ahead with removing the srand() from the lockfile code, > That thread may have progressed a little since you last looked at it. I think this part of my summary is still correct. >> so I'll focus on creating a `git_rand()` that centralizes the use of >> srand(), but won't touch the code in the lockfile so your patch applies >> independently. > Instead of using srand() and rand() (which would make sense to wrap with > git_rand() as you propose), we can simplify our lives by using a CSPRNG, > which only gets initialized once, as is already the case with > csprng_bytes(). So the idea is to use csprng_bytes() everywhere instead of srand()/rand(). I can adjust my local patch to still create git_rand(), but base it on csprng_bytes() and not collide with your patch. Mimicking rand()'s behavior is a simpler interface to consume. Thanks, -Stolee
