Update comments for Intel RDRAND circuit and underflow
parent
2efe26a418
commit
d3e566da61
11
rdrand.h
11
rdrand.h
|
|
@ -42,10 +42,13 @@ public:
|
|||
//! \param retries the number of retries for failed calls to the hardware
|
||||
//! \details RDRAND() constructs a generator with a maximum number of retires
|
||||
//! for failed generation attempts.
|
||||
//! \details Empirical testing under a 6th generaton i7 (6200U) shows RDSEED fails
|
||||
//! to fulfill requests at about 6 to 8 times the rate of RDRAND. The default
|
||||
//! retries reflects the difference.
|
||||
RDRAND(unsigned int retries = 12) : m_retries(retries) {}
|
||||
//! \details According to DJ of Intel, the Intel RDRAND circuit does not underflow.
|
||||
//! If it did hypothetically underflow, then it would return 0 for the random value.
|
||||
//! Its not clear what AMD's behavior will be, and what the returned value will be if
|
||||
//! underflow occurs.
|
||||
//! Also see <A HREF="https://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2016-June/007702.html">RDRAND
|
||||
//! not really random with Oracle Studio 12.3 + patches</A>
|
||||
RDRAND(unsigned int retries = 4) : m_retries(retries) {}
|
||||
|
||||
virtual ~RDRAND() {}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue