From 907a2aa4c78833ce93455567ae10ff2f506e752e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:27:57 -0800
Subject: Internal RNG for approximateBestSubset to prevent degenerate
 behavior.

This fixes test_bitcoin failures on openbsd reported by dhill on IRC.

  On some systems rand() is a simple LCG over 2^31 and so it produces
an even-odd sequence.  ApproximateBestSubset was only using the least
significant bit and so every run of the iterative solver would be the
same for some inputs, resulting in some pretty dumb decisions.

Using something other than the least significant bit would paper over
the issue but who knows what other way a system's rand() might get us
here.  Instead we use an internal RNG with a period of something like
2^60 which is well behaved.  This also makes it possible to make the
selection deterministic for the tests, if we wanted to implement that.
---
 src/test/util_tests.cpp | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)

(limited to 'src/test')

diff --git a/src/test/util_tests.cpp b/src/test/util_tests.cpp
index f56969cba6..1b0ccad511 100644
--- a/src/test/util_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/util_tests.cpp
@@ -261,4 +261,66 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(util_IsHex)
     BOOST_CHECK(!IsHex("0x0000"));
 }
 
+BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(util_seed_insecure_rand)
+{
+    // Expected results for the determinstic seed.
+    const uint32_t exp_vals[11] = {  91632771U,1889679809U,3842137544U,3256031132U,
+                                   1761911779U, 489223532U,2692793790U,2737472863U,
+                                   2796262275U,1309899767U,840571781U};
+    // Expected 0s in rand()%(idx+2) for the determinstic seed.
+    const int exp_count[9] = {5013,3346,2415,1972,1644,1386,1176,1096,1009};
+    int i;
+    int count=0;
+
+    seed_insecure_rand();
+
+    //Does the non-determistic rand give us results that look too like the determinstic one?
+    for (i=0;i<10;i++)
+    {
+        int match = 0;
+        uint32_t rval = insecure_rand();
+        for (int j=0;j<11;j++)match |= rval==exp_vals[j];
+        count += match;
+    }
+    // sum(binomial(10,i)*(11/(2^32))^i*(1-(11/(2^32)))^(10-i),i,0,4) ~= 1-1/2^134.73
+    // So _very_ unlikely to throw a false failure here.
+    BOOST_CHECK(count<=4);
+
+    for (int mod=2;mod<11;mod++)
+    {
+        int mask = 1;
+        // Really rough binomal confidence approximation.
+        int err = 30*10000./mod*sqrt((1./mod*(1-1./mod))/10000.);
+        //mask is 2^ceil(log2(mod))-1
+        while(mask<mod-1)mask=(mask<<1)+1;
+
+        count = 0;
+        //How often does it get a zero from the uniform range [0,mod)?
+        for (i=0;i<10000;i++)
+        {
+            uint32_t rval;
+            do{
+                rval=insecure_rand()&mask;
+            }while(rval>=(uint32_t)mod);
+            count += rval==0;
+        }
+        BOOST_CHECK(count<=10000/mod+err);
+        BOOST_CHECK(count>=10000/mod-err);
+    }
+
+    seed_insecure_rand(true);
+
+    for (i=0;i<11;i++)
+    {
+        BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(insecure_rand(),exp_vals[i]);
+    }
+
+    for (int mod=2;mod<11;mod++)
+    {
+        count = 0;
+        for (i=0;i<10000;i++) count += insecure_rand()%mod==0;
+        BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(count,exp_count[mod-2]);
+    }
+}
+
 BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END()
-- 
cgit v1.2.3