From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF36EA0679
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Sat,  6 Apr 2019 07:52:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82ED32E81;
	Sat,  6 Apr 2019 07:52:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D977BA3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat,  6 Apr 2019 07:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF6940011
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat,  6 Apr 2019 07:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004)
 id 3470D40009; Sat,  6 Apr 2019 07:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on
 bernadotte.lysator.liu.se
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL
 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
Received: from [192.168.1.59] (host-90-232-144-184.mobileonline.telia.com
 [90.232.144.184])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01F7740004;
 Sat,  6 Apr 2019 07:52:31 +0200 (CEST)
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
References: <20190405134542.28618-1-mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
 <20190405095738.145a622d@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
 <c6ff7265-872a-c49a-4325-780448398198@ericsson.com>
 <20190405135030.09c5291a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=c3=b6nnblom?= <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <94e2cd48-5ef2-bb54-4512-35c6a1c710f8@ericsson.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 07:52:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190405135030.09c5291a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] eal: make rte_rand() MT safe
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190406055231.G1dGeN9IdbewRaLVwZokDAu7GvuV13VAxgK9bIk435E@z>

On 2019-04-05 22:50, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> Read the discussion link about ARC4. http://www.pcg-random.org/
> 
> 	As a general-purpose PRNG, it is rather slow, and it is also slow by
> 	the standards of modern cryptographic PRNGs and is also considered too
> 	weak to use for cryptographic purposes. It is, however, of historical
> 	interest and can be useful in testing to see how sensitive a algorithms
> 	are to PRNG speed.
> 
> Using ARC4 replaces a one legacy one with another.
> 

Yes, I agree.

After looking at the code, I learned that - seemingly - most 
arc4random() implementations aren't using ARC4, but ChaCha.

Would it be unfortunate from a export control point of view to include 
cipher-based random generators in DPDK?