On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:21 PM Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/19/22 12:37, enh via Toybox wrote: > > BSD has <sys/random.h> first, but has getentropy() in there. glibc > > has getentropy() in addition to getrandom(), but they keep it in > > <unistd.h> instead. Since both went in in glibc 2.25 I don't think > > this will matter in practice, but if this does cause trouble, we > > can have separate getentropy() and getrandom() implementations for > > the BSDs versus glibc. > > Hmmm... git annotate says > https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/ccb8b7f7d48 from december 27, > 2016. No wait, that was inside an #ifdef STALLMAN_FTAGHN which changed > to something realistic in commit > https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/a851999f61a four days later. > > Five and a half years, meaning maybe five in distros. Not the full > seven, but I'll wait for somebody to complain I guess? > > > This does mean that the only valid values for `flags` are now 0 or > > WARN_ONLY, but that was already effectively true anyway because > > GRND_NONBLOCK != O_NONBLOCK so the fallback path was already broken. > > Everything should always be reading from /dev/urandom not /dev/random > these days. Anything else is a denial of service attack waiting to > happen. (Either the pool is properly initialized or it isn't.) > i was just wondering whether `int warn` (treated as a boolean) would be less unclear than `int flags`, since WARN_ONLY is the flag that works. > Rob >
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
