On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:43:13PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:45:58PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

quoted

-				(get_random_u32_below(1024) + 1) * PAGE_SIZE;
+				get_random_u32_between(1, 1024 + 1) * PAGE_SIZE;

I really don't like "between". Can't this be named "inclusive" (and
avoid adding 1 everywhere, which seems ugly), or at least named
something less ambiguous?

quoted

-		n = get_random_u32_below(100) + 1;
+		n = get_random_u32_between(1, 101);

Because I find this much less readable. "Below 100" is clear: 0-99
inclusive, plus 1, so 1-100 inclusive. "Between 1 and 101" is not obvious
to me to mean: 1-100 inclusive.

These seem so much nicer:
	get_random_u32_inclusive(1, 1024)
	get_random_u32_inclusive(1, 100)

Yann pointed out something similar -- the half-closed interval being
confusing -- and while I was initially dismissive, I've warmed up to
doing this fully closed after sending a diff of that:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y3Qt8HiXj8giOnZy@zx2c4.com/ (local)

So okay, let's say that I'll implement the inclusive version instead. We
now have two problems to solve:

1) How/whether to make f(0, UR2_MAX) safe,
   - without additional 64-bit arithmetic,
   - minimizing the number of branches.
   I have a few ideas I'll code golf for a bit.

2) What to call it:
   - between I still like, because it mirrors "I'm thinking of a number
     between 1 and 10 and..." that everybody knows,
   - inclusive I guess works, but it's not a preposition,
   - bikeshed color #3?

I think I can make progress with (1) alone by fiddling around with
godbolt enough, like usual. I could use some more ideas for (2) though.

Jason