On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:29 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> In the event that random_get_entropy() can't access a cycle counter or
> similar, falling back to returning 0 is really not the best we can do.
> Instead, at least calling random_get_entropy_fallback() would be
> preferable, because that always needs to return _something_, even
> falling back to jiffies eventually. It's not as though
> random_get_entropy_fallback() is super high precision or guaranteed to
> be entropic, but basically anything that's not zero all the time is
> better than returning zero all the time.
>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com>
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
