OK, go ahead! Thanks, Xuelei
On 5/9/2016 7:08 AM, Wang Weijun wrote: > >> On May 8, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/8/2016 9:06 PM, Wang Weijun wrote: >>> Ping again. >>> >>>> On May 3, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Wang Weijun <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> Please take a review at >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8154523/webrev.00 >>>> >>>> Basically, a reset in SHA1PRNG should forget the internal state and cached >>>> output. >>>> >> The spec of SecureRandomSpi.engineSetSeed() says: >> >> The given seed supplements, rather than replaces, the existing seed. > > I think this is to encourage people to call setSeed() even if the caller > cannot find a perfect seed, as any new call won't make randomness worse. > >> >> If I'm understand correctly, reseed is not the same as reset. It should >> be OK to use the cached output for performance if the previous seed is OK. > > Well, it's almost reset. One calls setSeed() hoping new entropy is added and > the output changes. Calling setSeed() is not a common thing and I think it's > OK to ignore the performance impact here. Non predictability is quite crucial > for a SecureRandom. > > Thanks > Max > > >> >> Xuelei >
