On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> For situations in which we don't have a c0 counter register available,
> we've been falling back to reading the c0 "random" register, which is
> usually bounded by the amount of TLB entries and changes every other
> cycle or so.
Hi Maciej,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:25 PM Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> > For situations in which we don't have a c0 counter register available,
> > we've been falling back to reading the c0 "random" register, which is
> > usually bounded by the
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> For situations in which we don't have a c0 counter register available,
> we've been falling back to reading the c0 "random" register, which is
> usually bounded by the amount of TLB entries and changes every other
> cycle or so. This means it wraps
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 4:18 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> In the event that random_get_entropy() can't access a cycle counter or
> similar, falling back to returning 0 is really not the best we can do.
> Instead, at least calling random_get_entropy_fallback() would be
> preferable, because tha
