On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > You are effectively proposing that there ought to be a middle range of > security between prandom_32, get_random_u32/get_random_u64 and > get_random_bytes(). I think that's going to lead to all sorts of > complexity and bugs from people not understanding when they should use > get_random_u32 vs get_random_bytes versus prandom_u32. And then we'll > end up needing to audit all of the callsites for get_random_u32() so > they don't violate this new usage rule that you are proposing. I agree with you wholeheartedly. get_random_* provides the secure random numbers. prandom_* provides the insecure random numbers. Introducing some kind of middle ground will result in needless complexity and inevitable bugs.
