Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
a way to influence the various libc people to
ensure they manage to provide a getentropy().
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:12:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:18:15AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> > The getrandom(2) system call was requested by the LibreSSL Portable
>> > developers. It is analoguous to the getentropy(2) system call in
>> > OpenBSD.
>>
>> What's the reason to not implement exactly the same system call OpenBSD
>> does? Having slightly different names and semantics for the same
>> functionality is highly annoying.
>
> The getrandom(2) system call is a superset of getentropy(2). When we
> add the support for this into glibc, it won't be terribly difficult
> nor annoying to drop the following in alongside the standard support
> needed for any new system call:
>
> int getentropy(void *buf, size_t buflen)
> {
> int ret;
>
> ret = getentropy(buf, buflen, 0);
> return (ret > 0) ? 0 : ret;
> }
>
> The reason for the additional flags is that I'm trying to solve more
> problems than just getentropy()'s raison d'etre. The discussion of
> this is in the commit description; let me know if there bits that I
> could make clearer.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
