On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:29 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the event that random_get_entropy() can't access a cycle counter or
> similar, falling back to returning 0 is really not the best we can do.
> Instead, at least calling random_get_entropy_fallback() would be
> preferable, because that always needs to return _something_, even
> falling back to jiffies eventually. It's not as though
> random_get_entropy_fallback() is super high precision or guaranteed to
> be entropic, but basically anything that's not zero all the time is
> better than returning zero all the time.
>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
