On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/07/2012 02:21 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> I still want to hear at least from Ted about this changes -- we would >> be potentially increasing the predictability of these bytes... > > We would not increasing that if this routine would be used for AT_RANDOM > only(and if the array keeping aligned to 4 bytes). > Otherwise, it would be, so let's waiting for further feedbacks. get_random_int() comes from a different pool than get_random_bytes(), IIUC. I'd like to hear some convincing reasoning as to why this change doesn't compromise predictability. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
