Hacker News Reader

Catchy title. Nowhere it says it returns non-random data. It just fails.

Sure it does... read all the posts. Also read all the history.

Also read this from 2013 " I am so glad I resisted pressure from Intel engineers to let /dev/random rely only on the RDRAND instruction... Relying solely on the hardware random number generator which is using an implementation sealed inside a chip which is impossible to audit is a BAD idea. "

And this https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/10/torvalds_on_rrrand_...

So, uh, this isn't news, and isn't limited to AMD.

Sure it'd be nice to fix.

I fail to see how a dev talking about a wholly unrelated implementation from an entirely different vendor has anything to bear on this conversation unless you're just maliciously spreading FUD around the entire concept of random numbers.

Do you actually know if the instruction is faulting or delivering back non-random data ("sure it does...")? Is the non-random data 0's or something with a pattern like 0x9090? Does that match the Intel implementation's behavior exactly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com