locks and kernel randomness...

[John-Mark Gurney]

Warner Losh wrote this message on Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:56 -0700:
> Then again, if you want to change random(), provide a weak_random() that???s
> the traditional non-crypto thing that???s fast and lockless. That would make it easy
> to audit in our tree. The scheduler doesn???t need cryptographic randomness, it
> just needs to make different choices sometimes to ensure its notion of fairness.

I do not support having a weak_random...  If the consumer is sure
enough that you don't need a secure random, then they can pick an LCG
and implement it themselves and deal (or not) w/ the locking issues...

It appears that the scheduler had an LCG but for some reason the authors
didn't feel like using it here..

-- 
  John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 415 225 5579

     "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."