Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
If the tests can't tell the difference between it being fed all '1's and random input, then the tests are pretty worthless in terms of evaluating it.
Remember that the claim is that this is far better than a PRNG by itself, so to show this, you need to have a test that fails on a PRNG, but passes with the HAVEGE hardware input.
Either that or you need to explain why HAVEGE is better, not just say "see, we studied it and it passed all the tests", which is what HPA is complaining that most of the papers on it boil down to.
Posted Nov 20, 2012 22:02 UTC (Tue) by mkerrisk (subscriber, #1978)
To be clear: it is not the *tests* that are being fed all 1s. It is HAVEGE, which then anyway produces good enough PRNG outputs that the test pass.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds