The rte_rand() documentation left it unspecified if the rte_rand() was
multi-thread safe or not, and the implementation (based on lrand48())
was not.
This commit makes rte_rand() safe to use from any lcore thread by
using lrand48_r() and per-lcore random state structs. Besides the
obvious improvem
On 2019-04-05 15:45, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
The rte_rand() documentation left it unspecified if the rte_rand() was
multi-thread safe or not, and the implementation (based on lrand48())
was not.
This commit makes rte_rand() safe to use from any lcore thread by
using lrand48_r() and per-lcore ran
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:51:39PM +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> On 2019-04-05 15:45, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> > The rte_rand() documentation left it unspecified if the rte_rand() was
> > multi-thread safe or not, and the implementation (based on lrand48())
> > was not.
> >
> > This commit mak
On 2019-04-05 16:28, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:51:39PM +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
On 2019-04-05 15:45, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
The rte_rand() documentation left it unspecified if the rte_rand() was
multi-thread safe or not, and the implementation (based on lrand48()
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 15:45:42 +0200
Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> The rte_rand() documentation left it unspecified if the rte_rand() was
> multi-thread safe or not, and the implementation (based on lrand48())
> was not.
>
> This commit makes rte_rand() safe to use from any lcore thread by
> using lran
On 2019-04-05 18:57, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
rand48 is a terrible PRNG, why not use something better?
Similar discussion in Linux kernel pointed at:
http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/some-prng-implementations.html
Mail thread here:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg560231.html
DPDK was
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:04:28 +0200
Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> On 2019-04-05 18:57, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> > rand48 is a terrible PRNG, why not use something better?
> >
> > Similar discussion in Linux kernel pointed at:
> > http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/some-prng-implementations.html
>
On 2019-04-05 22:50, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Read the discussion link about ARC4. http://www.pcg-random.org/
As a general-purpose PRNG, it is rather slow, and it is also slow by
the standards of modern cryptographic PRNGs and is also considered too
weak to use for crypt
8 matches
Mail list logo
