Hi Jason,
> > There are two variants only of the CP0 Random register that we can ever
> > encounter, as it's been de-facto standardised in early 1990s already and
> > then written down in the MIPSr1 architecture specification ~2000. So I
> > think it may make sense to actually handle them both explictitly with
> > individual calculations, possibly conditionalised on a CONFIG setting or
> > `cpu_has_3kex', because kernels that support the two variants of the MMU
> > architecture are mutually incompatible.
>
> Okay, I can give this a shot, but this certainly isn't my forté. It
> may ultimately wind up being simpler for you to just send some code of
> what you envision for this, but if I understand your idea correctly,
> what you're saying is something like:
>
> static inline unsigned long random_get_entropy(void)
> {
> unsigned int prid = read_c0_prid();
> unsigned int imp = prid & PRID_IMP_MASK;
> unsigned int c0_random;
>
> if (can_use_mips_counter(prid))
> return read_c0_count();
>
> if (cpu_has_3kex)
> c0_random = (read_c0_random() >> 8) & 0x3f;
> else
> c0_random = read_c0_random() & 0x3f;
> return (random_get_entropy_fallback() << 6) | (0x3f - c0_random);
> }
>
> What do you think of that? Some tweak I'm missing?
It certainly looks good to me. Do you have a way I could verify how this
function performs? If so, then I could put it through my systems as I can
cover all the cases handled here.
Any improvements I previously discussed can then be made locally in the
MIPS port as follow-up changes.
> > Isn't it going to be an issue for an entropy source that the distribution
> > of values obtained from the CP0 Random bit-field is not even, that is some
> > values from the 6-bit range will never appear?
>
> It's the same situation without inverting the order: instead of some
> bits on the top never happening, some bits on the bottom never happen
> instead. In general, counters don't form uniform distributions anyway,
> since the lower bits change faster, and neither are they independent,
> since one sample in large part depends on the previous. This is just
> sort of the nature of the beast, and the code that calls
> random_get_entropy() deals with this appropriately (by, at the moment,
> just hashing all the bits).
OK then, thanks for your clarification.
Maciej
