Re: [PATCH] Improve mutt's random data generator.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 09:48 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:

>Ah, sorry.  Yes, the code is executed.  The whole snippet is:
>
>  if ((res == (size_t) -1) || (res < length_requested))
>  {
>    if (res < length_requested)
>    {
>      length_requested -= res;
>      random_bytes += res;
>    }
>    prng_random_bytes(random_bytes, length_requested);
>  }

I don't know what prng_random_bytes() is, so don't quite know the 
intent here. But counting on (res < length_requested) when getrandom() 
failed seems like pushing C pretty hard.

I'd be inclined to completely separate the error case (-1) from 
everything else. Just detect -1 one time, with ==.