> On 16 Apr 2017, at 12:50, Rodney W. Grimes <free...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> > wrote: > >> This does not use DES' Chacha20 commit, as I had already completed the >> testing for it, and received SO@ approval. >> >> DES's commit made Chaha20 a module. This is of no use to arc4random(9), >> which needs the code to be standard. Also his API is different. >> >> I have no objection to reworking the arc4random/Chacha below to use DES' >> version of Chacha, but his code needs to be standard library code, >> not an optional module. >> >> Any objections to me doing this? > > Yes > > We need to move towards more modules, not less. Having this standard > does not even allow one to compile a kernel without it. I should be > able to compile a kernel without arc4random(9) and without chacha if > I so desire. And I should be able to load and unload these if I so > desire. This later feature is VERY usefull for developement and > debug cycles.
>From replacing the rc4 algorithm with chacha20, this chalice has now become poisoned with the job of redesigning the entire structure of kernel random-number generation. This may take a while, and I'm already behind on RNG jobs. > I am sure with careful though we can find a way to allow arc4random > to use a pointer that knows if the chacha code is avaliable, and use > it if so, and if not fall back to something else, or punt with an > error return. Error return is out of the question; arc4random() is pretty fundamental. The alternative is to return no or fake random numbers, which rather misses the point of what this is for. But it can be done. M -- Mark R V Murray _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
