Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded Subject: Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 11:07:19 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 9 Message-ID: <87o7qxugig.fsf@nightsong.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ad4fe274bbaaf22360b211a2181d0484"; logging-data="3533190"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fq+f5NHz6JUd1jJgGG2ga" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0elDmwZsTd/Xkj6iojHUwvkOHK8= sha1:0UacocZqKyE3wWPivOM0tjZ11TQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.arch.embedded:31545 antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: > "lousy" RNG fails relatively simple statistic tests. For a memory tester, the RNG only has to scatter the address sequence enough to decorrelate it from whatever address interactions might lurk within the hardware. Of course, for some kinds of issues like Rowhammer, finding the interactions is also important.