Subject: Re: replace kernel random number function
To: Johan Danielsson <>
From: None <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/23/2000 09:20:23
>> i plan to replace kernel random(9) with libc random(3) code, or
>> arc4random.  any comments?
>Shouldn't this use rnd(9), or is that too slow?

	there are places where:
	- we need better random number than random(9) does, and
	- it does not need to be too good like rnd(4).
	if we use rnd(4) too much, we use up entropy (and it is a bad thing).