From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 02:00:21 2004 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 B076316A4CE; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D9C43D3F; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:00:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i3A90KWc053219; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:00:20 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)i3A90KCk053218; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:00:20 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) 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])i3A8xj0w066454; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:59:45 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200404100859.i3A8xj0w066454@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Colin Percival In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:39:58 BST." <6.0.1.1.1.20040410093354.07d96008@imap.sfu.ca> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:59:45 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Score: 4 (****) FROM_NO_LOWER,MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules/random Makefile src/sys/dev/random harvest.c hash.c hash.h nehemiah.c nehemiah.h probe.c randomdev.c randomdev.h randomdev_soft.c randomdev_soft.h yar 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: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:00:21 -0000 Colin Percival writes: > Is there any reason we can't just have an rc.conf variable > entropy_trust_the_spooks = "YES" > which allows users to choose between optimal performance and > possible problems if the entropy source isn't as good as the > vendor claims? Sure, that is possible, but I have an aversion to building something that is too complicated, because sooner-or-later someone is going to stumble over a previously unthought-of combination and create an embarrassing incident. I'd rather keep it simple. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH