Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 05:25:42 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs mkfs.c src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_alloc.c ffs_vfsops.c Message-ID: <20030215022542.GA62285@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302141625390.39134-100000@root.org> References: <20030214221503.GA59673@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302141625390.39134-100000@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 16:31:10 -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 15:33:28 -0600, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > Are the sequences for it also repeatable in the newfs case for e.g. the > > > regression tests, where it is used unseeded? > > > > Obvious answer - no. > > > > BTW, this fix really fixes nothing for FreeBSD case because we already use > > srandomdev() (for non-regression case). > > Speaking totally informally, arc4 is more secure for this purpose than an > LFSR despite seeding the latter via srandomdev(). It isn't big news, arc4random() internal state size is 256 bytes while default random() state size is 124 bytes, but I don't think that anybody can feel that difference inside short range needed for mkfs. The complaint is about broken regression test case, not about srandom()->arc4random() transition taken alone. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-src" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030215022542.GA62285>