Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:04:57 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is fork() hook ever possible? Message-ID: <89506.1221638697@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:55:13 %2B0400." <20080917075513.GB55535@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20080917075513.GB55535@nagual.pp.ru>, Andrey Chernov writes: >On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 08:41:33PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <200809161628.54085.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >> >> >The PID isn't the seed, he's using a PID change as a notification that the >> >process needs to do a re-stir the next time it wants a psuedo-random number >> >(b/c the PID change means it is now a new process). >> >> Seems to be a vast overkill to me, in countless other contexts, >> it is the responsibility of the programmer to do what needs done on >> a fork, and I see no reason why this couldn't be likewise. > >The situation is not so simple since the library functions can call >ar4random() internally (like mktemp() family already and always does) I have a really hard time seeing how this could become a performance issue, ever. The solution however, is simple: Just have these hidden library calls to arc4random call a wrapper function that does the pid check. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?89506.1221638697>