David, all,
* David CARLIER (devne...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > IIUC, what this code actually does is reseed itself from /dev/urandom
> > every so often and work from a PRNG in between. That's not a layer that
> > we need, because the code on top is already designed to cope with the
> > foibles of /d
> I dunno, it seems like this is opening us to a new set of portability
> hazards (ie, sub-par implementations of arc4random) with not much gain to
> show for it.
>
Hence I reduced to three platforms only.
>
> IIUC, what this code actually does is reseed itself from /dev/urandom
> every so often
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> More generally, why should we bother with an additional implementation?
>> Is this better than /dev/urandom, and if so why?
> If what is wanted is something more like /dev/urandom, one can call
> getentrop
On November 22, 2017 8:51:07 AM PST, ilm...@ilmari.org wrote:
>If what is wanted is something more like /dev/urandom, one can call
>getentropy(2) (or on Linux, getrandom(2)) directly, which avoids having
>to open the device file each time.
What does that buy us for our usages?
Andres
--
Sent f
Tom Lane writes:
> David CARLIER writes:
>> I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen in
>> quick glance it s RC4 ?
arc4random uses ChaCha20 since OpenBSD 5.5 (and libbsd 0.8.0 on Linux).
It uses getentropy(2) to seed itself at regular intervals and at fork().
ht
Hi,
Please don't top-quote on postgres mailing lists.
On 2017-11-22 16:16:35 +, David CARLIER wrote:
> > David CARLIER writes:
> > > I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen
> > in
> > > quick glance it s RC4 ?
> >
> > More generally, why should we bother wit
Basically the call never fails, always generating high quality random data
(especially the implementations based on Chacha* family, RC4 has
predictability issues), there is no need of a file descriptor.
On 22 November 2017 at 16:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> David CARLIER writes:
> > I m not against as
David CARLIER writes:
> I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen in
> quick glance it s RC4 ?
More generally, why should we bother with an additional implementation?
Is this better than /dev/urandom, and if so why?
regards, tom lane
I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen in
quick glance it s RC4 ?
Regards.
On 22 November 2017 at 15:37, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:08:46PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is my first small personal contribution.
> >
>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:08:46PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is my first small personal contribution.
>
> Motivation :
> - Using fail-safe, file descriptor free solution on *BSD and Darwin system
> - Somehow avoiding at the moment FreeBSD as it still uses RC4 (seemingly
> upda
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:08 PM, David CARLIER wrote:
> Motivation :
> - Using fail-safe, file descriptor free solution on *BSD and Darwin system
> - Somehow avoiding at the moment FreeBSD as it still uses RC4 (seemingly
> updated to Chacha20 for FreeBSD 12.0 and eventually backported later on).
>
Hello,
This is my first small personal contribution.
Motivation :
- Using fail-safe, file descriptor free solution on *BSD and Darwin system
- Somehow avoiding at the moment FreeBSD as it still uses RC4 (seemingly
updated to Chacha20 for FreeBSD 12.0 and eventually backported later on).
- For imp
12 matches
Mail list logo
