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

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:48:12PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:

quoted

+	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

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:54:17PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:48:12PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

+	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.

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.

Fair enough, I don't have a strong preference either way.  It was just
something I noticed when leafing through the (unfamiliar) code.

- z