Sounds fine to me.
Xuelei
Weijun Wang wrote:
Xuelei Fan wrote:
Max,
I'm not satisfied with the fix, it try to read the *first* 1024 files in
the "java.io.tmpdir", I don't know the order of the iterator of
java.nio.file.Path.newDirectoryStream(), but if the order sounds like by
name, by creation time, etc. I don't think the randomness is strong enough.
Correct. On a server with too many tmp files not get deleted, the first
1024 will always be the same.
New webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/6705872/webrev.01/
Now I choose the file for random. To be 100% identical to the old codes
when there are not many files, I always choose the first 512 files.
We talked about the bug around July, 2008 (Subject: SHA1PRNG
SecureRandom architecture). Brad suggested remove the java.io.tmpdir
stuff completely, while I think maybe we need the randomness of them. We
got no conclusion on the discuss.
I would prefer remove the stuff now.
Well, I don't know. More random facts bring more randomness, and I dare
out remove any of them without a theoretical computation.
Thanks
Max
Thanks,
Andrew
Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi All
A code review request for
6705872 SecureRandom number init is taking too long
on a java.io.tmpdir with a large number of files.
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6705872
Webrev is at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/6705872/webrev.00/
The threshold 1024 is a randomly chosen big enough number.
Thanks
Max
