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(). On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:12:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:18:15AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> > The getrandom(2) system call was requested by the LibreSSL Portable >> > developers. It is analoguous to the getentropy(2) system call in >> > OpenBSD. >> >> What's the reason to not implement exactly the same system call OpenBSD >> does? Having slightly different names and semantics for the same >> functionality is highly annoying. > > The getrandom(2) system call is a superset of getentropy(2). When we > add the support for this into glibc, it won't be terribly difficult > nor annoying to drop the following in alongside the standard support > needed for any new system call: > > int getentropy(void *buf, size_t buflen) > { > int ret; > > ret = getentropy(buf, buflen, 0); > return (ret > 0) ? 0 : ret; > } > > The reason for the additional flags is that I'm trying to solve more > problems than just getentropy()'s raison d'etre. The discussion of > this is in the commit description; let me know if there bits that I > could make clearer. > > Cheers, > > - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html