Hi Johannes,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 13:16 +0200, 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.
> > Inste
On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 13:16 +0200, 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
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 that always needs to return _something_, even
falling back to jiffies ev
