On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 08:59 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 11:55 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > Wouldn't it just be easier to write it one location and replace the > > other with a symlink to it? > > Looks like neither the urandom init script nor systemd-random-seed > unlink the file before writing to it, so this could potentially work > unless that changes at some point. Just writing two different seeds > avoids the need to care about what the implementations will do in the > future so I think it is safer.
The original report says: > systemd-random-seed.service overrides the urandom init script > but uses a different location for its random seed file If it's going to override/shadow (as opposed to simply working alongside/in parallel) urandom, probably it ought to also be looking at/consuming the urandom seed? Ian.
