1995-11-01 - Re: /dev/random for FreeBSD [was: Re: /dev/random for Linux]

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: tomw@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
Message Hash: 5d1d7b0375edd9786d9aa006533035065ae2df136dda6318cffa4972afc8906e
Message ID: <199511010026.TAA22659@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199510311648.IAA05877@orac.engr.sgi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-01 01:49:27 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:49:27 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:49:27 +0800
To: tomw@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
Subject: Re: /dev/random for FreeBSD [was: Re: /dev/random for Linux]
In-Reply-To: <199510311648.IAA05877@orac.engr.sgi.com>
Message-ID: <199511010026.TAA22659@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tom Weinstein writes:
> One problem with this scheme is that if multiple processes have
> /dev/random open you can block unexpectedly.  If I try to avoid blocking
> by first checking if entropy is available there's a race condition if
> another process reads from the device.  Is there another way to avoid
> blocking?

Yeah. Use non-blocking I/O. Its in every version of Unix I've touched
for over a decade.