Hello! On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > At Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:40:12 +0200, > Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can't we come up with something better than putting the mixing machinery > > into the kernel? > > I am not arguing for the mixing to happen in the kernel, I am arguing > for it to happen in the device framework. In Mach, there is no > distinction, but in other systems there can be.
Hmm, I see. > What do you perceive as the benefit of having the entropy mixing > function outside of the device framework in its own user space server? Having rather complex mathematical permutations done in kernel-space in a micro kernel system seemed rather counterintuitive for me. But if you now say these permutations are not done in the kernel, but in the device framework (where the entropy is ``generated'') then it's starting to make some sense to me. Do you -- in essence -- say that every (suitable) device does also (apart from its usual expected device functionality) fulfil a `get-entropy' interface? And do you say that -- because all device drivers are anyway running in kernel space these days -- all devices' entropy is aggregated into (currently) one entropy buffer? If we (one day) would have several independent device driver protection domains (in user space), would each of them then provide their own entropy source? Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
