Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > lock_sock() would solve the former. I'm not sure what should be done about > rng_recvmsg(). It apparently relies on the crypto_rng doing its own locking, > but maybe it should just use lock_sock() too. The lock_sock is only needed if you're doing testing. What I'd prefer is to have a completely different code-path for testing. How about you fork the code in rng_accept_parent so that you have a separate proto_ops for the test path that is used only if setentropy has been called? That way all of this code could magically go away if the CONFIG option wasn't set. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
