From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jul 16 23:24:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E171A37B6A8; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:24:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00674; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:24:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Mark Murray Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: randomdev entropy gathering is really weak In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:07:43 +0200." <200007170607.IAA05866@grimreaper.grondar.za> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:24:18 +0200 Message-ID: <672.963815058@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200007170607.IAA05866@grimreaper.grondar.za>, Mark Murray writes: >getnanotime() is already extensively used; I looked at that use, but as far as I can tell, it is only used as a flag at this time, the bits returned by getnanotime() does not end up in the entropy pool ? I'm not dissatisfied about that btw, the output from getnanotime() is not very random at all, unless you dive into the timecounter code to find out what the parameters are. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message