-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 308
feat(random): make get-random-bytes fallible #895
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could also allow
get-random-bytesto return fewer bytes than requested.That way we don't need the fallibility and the new
max-random-bytes-lengthAPI.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is one of the most portable implementations to emulate: https://docs.rs/getrandom/0.4.2/getrandom/
So if we make get-random-bytes fallible (return result) and let callers handle errors, matching how Rust's getrandom crate works, then we remove the ceilings. Implementors may set their own limits and fail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What I'm suggesting is to remove the
too-many-bytesfailure mode and allow hosts to simply return fewer bytes than requested. (But with a required minimum of 1?)The guest (e.g. Rust's
getrandom::fillimplementation) can call the WASI API in a loop in case they don't like short reads.And with the
too-many-bytescase removed, I'm not sure we need an error variant at all here, though I'm also not fundamentally opposed to it either.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally I might lean towards the
max-lenidea as well because it removes ambiguity about the error case. In general a failure to acquire randomness is a weird situation to be in, so by removing errors entirely it means that the guest is guaranteed it's able to acquire at least some randomness. I also would agree with @badeend that it's not a loss in expressiveness necessarily sincegetrandommight just end up bottoming out in mulitple calls to this function