Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 03:25, Michael Conrad wrote: > On 9/18/23 06:14, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote: > > everything is compressed with gzip -7. This is the worst scenario. >> However, even in the worst scenario due to gzip one single bit of >> difference in the input generates a completely

Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

On 9/18/23 06:14, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote: everything is compressed with gzip -7. This is the worst scenario. However, even in the worst scenario due to gzip one single bit of difference in the input generates a completely different compressed output: Compression (or

Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

Hi Roberto, El lun, 18 sept 2023 a las 11:54, Roberto A. Foglietta (< roberto.foglie...@gmail.com>) escribió: > On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 11:20, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia > wrote: > > > >> # RAF: seeding the urandom device with some data and a few bits of > randomness. > >> # The randomness

Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 11:20, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote: > >> # RAF: seeding the urandom device with some data and a few bits of >> randomness. >> # The randomness is put at the beginning of some text data, which is >> going >> # to be compressed. It is expected that the whole

Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

El lun, 18 sept 2023 a las 9:42, Roberto A. Foglietta (< roberto.foglie...@gmail.com>) escribió: > Hi all, > > I am investigating the Android init procedure (one version, one > device, not in general) and I found an interesting line about the > initialization of the /dev/urandom (seeding, I

[PATCH v2] date: exit with failure when clock_settime fails

From: Ladislav Michl Coreutils date behaves this way since 1998-12-11 as done in their git commit a17cdb11731e ("(main): Arrange to exit unsuccessfully when stime fails.") Signed-off-by: Ladislav Michl --- CHANGES: -v2: better compatibily with coreutils, add explaining commit message

Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 10:11, Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:42 AM Roberto A. Foglietta > wrote: > > > In case the /dev/urandom initialisation is a necessity (or a best > > practice), does it make sense to add it into busybox as an option or > > as an application? > > If

Re: RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:42 AM Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > In case the /dev/urandom initialisation is a necessity (or a best > practice), does it make sense to add it into busybox as an option or > as an application? If you are able to update to a newer version of busybox, you might want to

RFC: initialize /dev/urandom, is it necessary? Can we do it in a better way?

Hi all, I am investigating the Android init procedure (one version, one device, not in general) and I found an interesting line about the initialization of the /dev/urandom (seeding, I suppose). cat /proc/cmdline > /dev/urandom Therefore, I developed a more sophisticated way to do that