Matt Mackall wrote: >While it may have some good properties, it lacks >some that random.c has, particularly robustness in the face of failure >of crypto primitives.
It's probably not a big deal, because I'm not worried about the failure of standard crypto primitives, but-- Do you know of any analysis to back up the claim that /dev/random will be robust in the failure of crypto primitives? I have never seen anyone try to do such an analysis, but maybe you know of something that I don't. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/