Subject: Re: replace kernel random number function
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/23/2000 22:55:30
>> deraadt told me that i should not replace random(9), as there can be
>> some code depending on poorness, or uniformity, of random(9).
>??? Can you/he point to some examples of this? Sounds a little bit
>suspect to me...
sys/arch/sparc/sparc/clock.c assumes that random(9) returns uniform
random number (at least the comment says so).
if we take a safer side, we should not replace random(9), or we should
repalce random(9) with a random number generator with uniform
number distribuion. i still am not really sure if it matters (i
suspect it does not).