Re: /dev/random probs in 2.4test(12-pre3)

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin)  wrote on 02.12.00 in 
<90cs2v$6u6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Again, that's wrong even when you replace /dev/random with something
> else.  After all, you could be getting EINTR at any time, too, or get
> interrupted by a signal in the middle (in which case you'd get a short
> read.)
>
> SUCH CODE IS BROKEN.  PERIOD.  FULL STOP.

Well, one might argue that for some applications, it's sufficient to  
detect and abort such a situation.

But not checking is *never* right. Except *maybe* for a throwaway program  
whose source you erase after one use.

MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/