@@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static void mutate_buffer(u8 *buf, size_t count)
if (prandom_u32() % 4 == 0) {
num_flips = min_t(size_t, 1 << (prandom_u32() % 8), count * 8);
for (i = 0; i < num_flips; i++) {
- pos = prandom_u32() % (count * 8);
+ pos = prandom_u32_max(count * 8);
buf[pos / 8] ^= 1 << (pos % 8);
}
}
@@ -821,8 +821,7 @@ static void generate_random_bytes(u8 *buf, size_t count)
break;
default:
/* Fully random bytes */
- for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
- buf[i] = (u8)prandom_u32();
+ prandom_bytes(buf, count);
}
}
...in a couple of places where they're appropriate. There are many other places where successive code blocks make calls like prandom_u32() % 2 followed immediately by prandom_u32() % 4. This could be easily written to use three bits of one call, but at some cost in clarity and obvious-correctness, which is more important that efficiency in self-test code. Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org --- crypto/testmgr.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)