Message265555
| Author |
Colm Buckley |
| Recipients |
Colm Buckley, doko, lemburg, matejcik, rhettinger, socketpair, thomas-petazzoni, vstinner |
| Date |
2016年05月14日.23:09:28 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1463267368.81.0.11462956767.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
@haypo - yes, I think you're right. Can you delete those two lines (or I can upload another version if you prefer).
I think the pragmatic thing here is to proceed by reading /dev/urandom (as we've discussed). It's not safe to raise an exception in py_getrandom from what I can see; a thorough effort to signal the lack of randomness to outer functions needs more code examination than I have time to carry out at the moment.
From looking at when PyRandom_Init is called and how the hash secret is used; I think it is safe to proceed with /dev/urandom. The general understanding is that urandom has a lower entropy quotient than random, so it's hopefully not going to be used in strong crypto contexts. |
|