[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: maradns reproducibility fixes and the merits of picking a random num

From: Vagrant Cascadian
Subject: Re: maradns reproducibility fixes and the merits of picking a random number
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:23:36 -0700

On 2022-06-08, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 06.06.2022 um 18:49 -0700 schrieb Vagrant Cascadian:
>> p.s. Obviously, I picked the best random number.
> I beg to differ.
>> +-RandomPrime:  RandomPrime.c
>> +-      $(CC) -O3 -o RandomPrime RandomPrime.c
>> +-
>> +-DwRandPrime.h: RandomPrime
>> +-      if [ -e /dev/urandom ] ; then ./RandomPrime > DwRandPrime.h ;
>> fi
>> ++DwRandPrime.h:
>> ++      echo '#define MUL_CONSTANT 1238145941' > DwRandPrime.h
> This does not satisfy requirement #221: chosen by a fair dice roll. 
> Randomness can therefore not be guaranteed.

I will admit to "Obviously, I picked the best random number." as a
joke. Hard-coding any supposedly random number seems awfully wrong to

This is a not particularly great patch to make it compile reproducibly,
on the *assumption* that number will not actually be used in practice,
because it *supposed* to only be used when /dev/urandom is not
available. I would love to see better patches that make fewer

FWIW, This is effectively the same embedded random number used in the
Debian patch, although the maradns packaging in Debian basically comes
to the same result by copying files around rather than patching them

live well,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]