From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47284) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aM8Ti-0007S7-Ak for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:12:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aM8Th-0007Ac-BQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:12:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:12:06 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20160121061205.GC31960@ad.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1453311539-1193-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> <1453311539-1193-3-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453311539-1193-3-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/17] crypto: add cryptographic random byte source List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On Wed, 01/20 17:38, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > +int qcrypto_random_bytes(uint8_t *buf G_GNUC_UNUSED, > + size_t buflen G_GNUC_UNUSED, > + Error **errp) > +{ > + error_setg(errp, "No random byte source provided in this build"); > + return -1; Curious, why does a random(3) or /dev/random implementation fall short to error? Regardlessly, Reviewed-by: Fam Zheng