> Can we decide this, please - do we want secure startup (which will
> take some effort to achieve), or can we say "screw it" and start
> insecure like the old system?
Can we have both? Ie; by default we are insecure until some point we
call an ioctl() that says 'no more, you must get real rando
> Start some kind of hardware-managed timer at the earliest possible
> opportunity (perhaps start it in the boot loader!), then when you need to
> pick up your first seed, read the timer's value and seed your random
> generator from that.
I have some much more sophisticated code (written by JHB)
Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we decide this, please - do we want secure startup (which will
> take some effort to achieve), or can we say "screw it" and start
> insecure like the old system?
>
> I'm happy to accomodate folks, but the constant lack of concensus
> combined with ext
Doug Barton said:
> Since this post actually has some content I'm moving it to
> -current.
Cool!
> > Our /var isn't persistant accross boots, btw. It is a mfs file
> > system. Having a requirement that /var contain persistant data would
> > likely lead to problems.
>
> It's precis
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 03:00:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Since this post actually has some content I'm moving it to
> > -current.
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> > > I agree. RO / is absoultely *REQUIRED* for our appli
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 03:00:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Since this post actually has some content I'm moving it to
> -current.
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > I agree. RO / is absoultely *REQUIRED* for our application.
>
> As stated, all concerned are sympa
Since this post actually has some content I'm moving it to
-current.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> I agree. RO / is absoultely *REQUIRED* for our application.
As stated, all concerned are sympathetic to that. This is why it's
configurable.
> we have
> a small, writ
