Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:42:01 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 230870] Deprecate Yarrow
Message-ID:  <bug-230870-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D230870

            Bug ID: 230870
           Summary: Deprecate Yarrow
           Product: Base System
           Version: CURRENT
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Only Me
          Priority: ---
         Component: kern
          Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: cem@freebsd.org

I think we should deprecate Yarrow as soon as we possibly can.  I think it
would be reasonable to gone_in(12) it, even, removing it from tree before
stable/12.

At the very least, it should be gone_in(13)'d and removed after stable/12
branches.

We discussed this briefly on orthogonal devrandom bugs, and one concern rai=
sed
was embedded systems may prefer the lower space usage of Yarrow.

In response to that, I quantified the difference in state size and came up =
with
962 bytes.  Do we have embedded systems today that would trade a weak devra=
ndom
for 962 bytes of memory?

I suspect not.  IIRC, the smallest system we can run on today is either 32 =
or
64 MB, and even that requires quite a bit of manual tweaking to get a minim=
al
kernel and almost no userspace.  And on such a 32MB system, 962 bytes is
0.003%.  Is that small enough to be de minimis?  I think so.  If you can't =
run
with 33553470 bytes of memory it is unlikely you will be able to run with
33554432.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-230870-227>