On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > arc4random() is also thread-safe (it has interal locking) and very > > desirable for other reasons. But no way to save state. > > The last part of this is intentional. Saving the state of pseudo > random number generators is a stupid concept from the 80's. >
I see many rng functions behaving very differently. Is it a good idea to create a common locking layer on top of need-to-be-safe rng functions? Or we should deal only with original problem (and only port random.c code from netbsd)?
