Hi, Curt wrote: > Here's a fresh (20 July of this year) view by Theodore Ts'o: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/20/993
An opinion of substantial weight, indeed. Nevertheless it would be more interesting to learn the reason why Linux did not simply make /dev/random behave like /dev/urandom long ago. And again, the argumentation of Theodore is that there is always enough entropy at hand. I understand that in this situation there is no difference between /dev/random and /dev/urandom. The difference appears only when the assumption of wealth is not fulfilled. Also one should note that Theodore uses the argument of a deprecated /dev/random as answer to a side note of his discussion partner, not as general statement. The main point of Stephan Müller is that the system could collect more entropy. The answer of Theodore is that it already collects more than enough and does not have to care about being drained by /dev/random because that draining is deprecated. So one would have to ask him, whether this opinion does not hold under all circumstances or what else blocks him from just making both mechanisms equal. (Normally i would dare to approach him. But i guess he is already annoyed by the topic and man page reading cowards like me.) Have a nice day :) Thomas
