On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM Eduardo A. Bustamante López
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:15:12AM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:08 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> > > On 1/5/19 3:12 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:24:50AM +0100, Ole
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:15:12AM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:08 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >
> > On 1/5/19 3:12 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:24:50AM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> > > (...)
> > >> Patch attached.
> :
> > > - Does the new
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:08 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 1/5/19 3:12 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:24:50AM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> > (...)
> >> Patch attached.
:
> > - Does the new RNG generate uniformly distributed numbers? (Yes)
> > - What is the
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:14 PM Eduardo A. Bustamante López
wrote:>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:24:50AM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> (...)
> > Patch attached.
:
> I applied the Salsa20 RNG patch (slightly modified due to the recent changes
> in
> variables.c, attached [1]) to the tip of `devel`
>
On 1/5/19 3:12 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:24:50AM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> (...)
>> Patch attached.
>>
>> It is basically a copy of the code snippet from Wikipedia with a few
>> trivial wrappers.
>>
>> Apart from using Salsa20 the biggest change is that
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 12:12 PM Eduardo A. Bustamante López
wrote:
(...)
> 2. Performance impact
>
> The new RNG does more work, and thus, it is expected to have a performance
> impact when generating lots of random numbers. I tested 3 systems (2 amd64
> and 1
> armhf) and include the results
On 2-1-2019 02:29, Ole Tange wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:12 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
:
Thanks for the patch. I'll take a look after I release bash-5.0. One
question: can you reproduce the same random sequence by using the same
seed? That's for backwards compatibility, even if the sequences
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:12 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
:
> Thanks for the patch. I'll take a look after I release bash-5.0. One
> question: can you reproduce the same random sequence by using the same
> seed? That's for backwards compatibility, even if the sequences themselves
> differ.
Yes. Seeding
On 12/28/18 4:24 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 6:41 AM Eduardo Bustamante wrote:
> :
>> You know no one is stopping you from submitting a patch to actually
>> fix the documentation right? (or maybe, you know, submitting an actual
>> working patch to change the random generator,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 6:41 AM Eduardo Bustamante wrote:
:
> You know no one is stopping you from submitting a patch to actually
> fix the documentation right? (or maybe, you know, submitting an actual
> working patch to change the random generator, not just drop some
> irrelevant code snippet
On 12/15/18 5:22 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
>>> The reason for my submission was that I needed a bunch of random
>>> numbers in a shell script, but I needed them to be high quality.
>>> Luckily I did not just assume that Bash delivers high quality random
>>> numbers, but I read the source code, and
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 6:08 PM Ole Tange wrote:
(...)
> But your comment actually emphasizes my point: We _will_ have users
> who are naive enough to use $RANDOM in ways you and I would not do,
> because we know it is unsafe.
>
> Let's make those usages a little safer.
You know no one is
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:18 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 12/3/18 11:31 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:56 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >
> >> There has to be a compelling reason to change this, especially at a point
> >> so close to a major release.
I would think that a major release
On 12/3/18 11:31 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:56 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
>> There has to be a compelling reason to change this, especially at a point
>> so close to a major release.
>
> The reason for my submission was that I needed a bunch of random
> numbers in a shell
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:36 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:31:18PM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> > Luckily I did not just assume that Bash delivers high quality random
> > numbers, but I read the source code, and then found that the quality
> > was low. I do not think must
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:31:18PM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> Luckily I did not just assume that Bash delivers high quality random
> numbers, but I read the source code, and then found that the quality
> was low. I do not think must users would do that.
You're correct. Most users would not have
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:56 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> There has to be a compelling reason to change this, especially at a point
> so close to a major release.
The reason for my submission was that I needed a bunch of random
numbers in a shell script, but I needed them to be high quality.
Luckily I
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:56:33AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> There has to be a compelling reason to change this, especially at a point
> so close to a major release.
>
> You might be expecting too much from bash's random number generator. Is
> the problem that its period is at most 2**16? For
On 12/2/18 6:13 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:45 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 11/21/18 3:07 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
>>> 'brand' in variables.c is comparable in size to ChaCha20 and ChaCha20
>>> is not completely broken:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa20
>>>
>>> Could we
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:14 PM Ole Tange wrote:
(...)
> Git's use of SHA1 seems to be a prime example of what can go wrong:
> https://shattered.io/
What does a PRNG have to do with a hashing function?
> Can you elaborate on why you think it is a bad idea to change an
> insecure PRNG into a
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:45 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/21/18 3:07 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
> > 'brand' in variables.c is comparable in size to ChaCha20 and ChaCha20
> > is not completely broken:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa20
> >
> > Could we please replace 'brand' with ChaCha20?
>
>
On 11/21/18 3:07 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
> 'brand' in variables.c is comparable in size to ChaCha20 and ChaCha20
> is not completely broken:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa20
>
> Could we please replace 'brand' with ChaCha20?
What is your application that you need something more complicated
22 matches
Mail list logo
