From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 15 12:14:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C02A37B421; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D191443FF3; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:14:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7FJEHHo073425; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:14:17 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h7FJEGmW073424; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:14:16 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h7FJBkOI003844; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:11:47 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200308151911.h7FJBkOI003844@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Mike Silbersack In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:41:42 CDT." <20030815133943.I1565@odysseus.silby.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:11:45 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: Sam Leffler cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/libkern arc4random.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:14:30 -0000 Mike Silbersack writes: > > How did you validate the this change? I strongly suggest that mods like > > this need review before commit. Subtle problems can go unnoticed for a > > long time. > > > > Sam > > I'm fairly confident that I did not add any bugs in this commit. However, > I also have no way of knowing if arc4random was working correctly before > the commit either... How hard would it be to hook up the randomness > testing code you committed a few months back? If the testing code is in > userland, perhaps we could export a /dev/arandom like openbsd does for > simpler testing. I have not looked at the locking, but I have looked at this from a randomness perspective. With that in mind, I think Mike did the right thing in making sure that the first chunk of arcfour 'randomness' is ditched after a rekey. It may be fixing a non-problem, but if there is an undisclosed problem in determining the arcfour sequence, this helps thwart that. For the paranoids, this is cheap (almost free), and is solid from a arcfour-neurotic perspective. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH