On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 18:50, Alexey Suslikov wrote: > 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)?
just slap a mutex around it.
