Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

From: Theodore Ts'o
Date: Thu Jul 17 2014 - 17:33:04 EST


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:48:12PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> > + return urandom_read(NULL, buf, count, NULL);
>
> I wonder if we want to refactor the entry points a bit more instead of
> directly calling the device read functions. get_random_bytes() and
> urandom_read() both have their own uninitialied use warning message and
> tracing. Does the syscall want its own little extraction function as
> well?

I'm not sure what warning you are worried about? urandom_read() never
uses file or ppos, so passing in NULL works just fine as near as I can
tell.

I could refactor the entropy point, but it probably wouldn't add any
extra bloat, since the compiler would hopefully compile it away, but
adding the extra static function would seem to make things less
readable at least in my opinion.

- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/