Le 11/11/2016 à 11:47, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) a écrit : > Hi Nikos, > > On 11 November 2016 at 08:41, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 19:16 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> Nikos, Laurent, >>> So, I must admit that after your respective mails, I'm still not >>> clear. Do you think I should keep this patch, change it, or >>> discard it? >> >> It is a bit confusing to me. The sentences: >> "When reading from /dev/urandom (GRND_RANDOM is not set), >> getrandom()" >> >> and >> >> "The behavior when a call to getrandom() that is >> blocked while reading from /dev/urandom" >> >> seem to imply that getrandom() is a wrapper over /dev/urandom (i.e., >> internally it opens the device reads etc). That's not the case the >> system call doesn't go through /dev/urandom, although the pools behind >> are the same. > > I agree that this language is a bit confusing. But that language was > not introduced by my patch. > >> maybe saying the /dev/urandom pool instead, but I find that even that >> could confuse someone. >> >> So while the text is better and more precise in other aspects than >> before I think it is a bit confusing the mix of getrandom() with >> /dev/urandom and /dev/random. Maybe copy the text back and separate the >> descriptions even if they are very similar at the moment? > > I'm reluctant to duplicate text in two places. I think that that > duplication os prt of the reason why we have the current mess. So, maybe all this discussion about which interface to choose, expected usage, etc. should go to a random.7 man page? This would be the logical location to detail the differences about the three interfaces. What do you think? Cheers, Laurent
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
