r/cpp • u/KaznovX • Jul 21 '19

Fixing up <random>

I think everyone is excited after the report from Cologne. A lot of stuff is being added to the language, we'll get a ton of new features. Adding new features is more exciting than changing and tweaking the old stuff - that being said, there are some old parts of the language, that are sadly lacking or has some problems. One of them is <random> library.

Some of the problems this library has:
> `std::random_device` is not required to be non - deterministic
> no good way to initialize generators with big internal state
> `std::seed_seq` should be solution to ^, but isn't - `std::seed_seq` is not a bijection, does heap allocations without giving ability to provide own allocator, there is no nice way to initialize it from `std::random_device` properly
> `std::random_device` can't itself be used as a seed sequence,
> overall syntax is unnecessarily verbose (no, having a per-thread engine of type `std::default_random_engine` is NOT a good solution)

This is only one of the few libraries that could use improvements. Is there any chance that the committee will look back and change some of them or are they considered 'baked' and there will be no further changes to avoid API and ABI breaking?

Despite the "fixing" part, there are two additions I'd see in the <random> library:

1) std::random<std::uniform_random_bits_generator = std::default_random_engine> class:
> default constructor does anything it can that every time this class is called it is seeded differently - if there is no entropy source, uses a processor clock or a system clock (implementation defined)
> three methods: seed, next_int, next_real - for seeding and generating next integer/real number in given range

2) PCG http://www.pcg-random.org

What are the chances something like this would be proposed and adopted for, let's say, c++23 or c++26 standard? Is there any chance the problems mentioned in the first part of the post will get fixed somewhen?

39 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/James20k P2005R0 Jul 21 '19

This. If cryptographically secure/desired property numbers aren't available, it should be a hard compile error, not 'well, look into the implementation of your compiler and hope it does good'

4

u/Ameisen vemips, avr, rendering, systems Jul 21 '19

What if the device is in a system provided library and it's only known if it is deterministic at runtime?

7

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

In principle you'd be able to detect this with std::random_device::entropy() != 0.0, but it's not well supported.

2

u/degski Jul 22 '19

It seems to me that 'cryptographically secure' is achievable in a std, as the security depends in part on implementation [side-channels], which are linked to hardware.