Hi Amit, On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 06:53:57PM +0530, aksingh@hss.hns.com told us: > > Hi > > How about net_random() and net_srandom()(in net/core/utils.c), theyre also > random number generators, any suggestions as to which is better > get_random_bytes () or any of these ? Well, after taking a short look at what net_random() and net_srandom() do I'd say that get_random_bytes() does a better job (i.e. better random values), at least it seems like to me. net_(s)random() take net_rand_seed as a base, which is initialized to 152, do some multiplication and return net_rand_seed ^ jiffies, which results in a monotonically increasing value (ok, there's of course an overflow of net_rand_seed). But no more "real" randomness. OTOH, get_random_bytes() gets it's random numbers from the entropy pool which should give you better random numbers. Just my opinion, of course, maybe I have overlooked something. > Thanks Sven, but would a & not be better than a % to get a value between 0 > and my max value, i.e i can do a (get_random_bytes_returned & max_value). > Does this in anyway reduce randomnness ? Both should basically be the same I think. Sven > Any suggestions are welcome. > > thanks > Amit > -- Linux zion 2.6.7-rc2 #2 Mon May 31 22:58:01 CEST 2004 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux 15:39:41 up 6 days, 16:39, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Attachment:
pgp00585.pgp
Description: PGP signature
