From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF36EA0679 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20190405134542.28618-1-mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com> <20190405095738.145a622d@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> <20190405135030.09c5291a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=c3=b6nnblom?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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?