Use SecureRandom instead of Random for Metrics#3495
Merged
Conversation
11 tasks
krystofwoldrich
approved these changes
Jun 18, 2024
krystofwoldrich
left a comment
krystofwoldrich
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM 🚀
Thank you for the quick PR.
Contributor
Performance metrics 🚀
|
| Revision | Plain | With Sentry | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| d6d2b2e | 463.14 ms | 545.56 ms | 82.42 ms |
| a3c77bc | 375.80 ms | 445.85 ms | 70.06 ms |
| c7e2fbc | 377.85 ms | 426.35 ms | 48.50 ms |
| f5e1b97 | 362.53 ms | 429.31 ms | 66.78 ms |
| 7eccfdb | 389.94 ms | 461.29 ms | 71.35 ms |
| f1fdb9f | 404.21 ms | 496.87 ms | 92.66 ms |
| 28c9a83 | 346.14 ms | 377.76 ms | 31.62 ms |
| baaf637 | 375.71 ms | 441.58 ms | 65.87 ms |
| 283d83e | 348.44 ms | 392.06 ms | 43.62 ms |
| 61981dc | 388.65 ms | 454.96 ms | 66.31 ms |
App size
| Revision | Plain | With Sentry | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| d6d2b2e | 1.72 MiB | 2.27 MiB | 555.05 KiB |
| a3c77bc | 1.72 MiB | 2.29 MiB | 577.53 KiB |
| c7e2fbc | 1.72 MiB | 2.29 MiB | 576.40 KiB |
| f5e1b97 | 1.70 MiB | 2.28 MiB | 592.00 KiB |
| 7eccfdb | 1.72 MiB | 2.27 MiB | 556.93 KiB |
| f1fdb9f | 1.70 MiB | 2.28 MiB | 592.08 KiB |
| 28c9a83 | 1.70 MiB | 2.28 MiB | 592.00 KiB |
| baaf637 | 1.72 MiB | 2.27 MiB | 558.42 KiB |
| 283d83e | 1.72 MiB | 2.29 MiB | 577.69 KiB |
| 61981dc | 1.70 MiB | 2.28 MiB | 592.12 KiB |
Contributor
|
@markushi is this on a hot path / do we know if/how much |
Member
Author
It's only computed once during class init and we access SecureRandom here and here already during app start. I also tried to run it on a test device, takes <1ms to execute. final long totalDurationNanos = 0;
final int n = 1000;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
final long start = System.nanoTime();
final double value = new SecureRandom().nextFloat();
totalDurationNanos += System.nanoTime() - start;
}
Log.d("Test", "took " + TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS.toMillis(totalDurationNanos) + "ms to generate " + n + " items.");
// took 129ms to generate 1000 items. |
kahest
approved these changes
Jun 18, 2024
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
📜 Description
In order to not get flagged by security scanners we should use
SecureRandomin favor ofRandom. Whilst the use-case (random flush shift) doesn't really require a strong random, I guess it's maintenance-friendlier to useSecureRandom.💡 Motivation and Context
Fixes getsentry/sentry-react-native#3897
💚 How did you test it?
📝 Checklist
sendDefaultPIIis enabled.🔮 Next steps