Message 267710 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub , and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

In-reply-to
Author	dstufft
Recipients	Colm Buckley, Lukasa, alex, christian.heimes, doko, dstufft, larry, lemburg, martin.panter, matejcik, ned.deily, python-dev, rhettinger, skrah, thomas-petazzoni, vstinner, ztane
Date	2016年06月07日.17:52:01
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1465321921.55.0.629558740358.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
> I don't follow whose patch does what. But here's what I find acceptable, from a high level. > > * The semantics as presented by the documentation must be preserved. os.urandom() and other operations that declare they're safe for cryptographic use must remain safe for cryptographic use. > * "import random" must not block. > * "import hashlib" must not block. > > Is there a patch set that accomplishes that? I think nonblocking_urandom_noraise.patch will solve the 90+ second start up without affecting os.urandom which should solve the first one (once the already applied patch gets reverted), but I'm afraid I don't know C well enough to meaningfully review that for accuracy. None of the current patches solve the second without invalidating the first, but it would be, I believe, an additional patch ontop of nonblocking_urandom_noraise.patch. The third is already the case.

Content

> I don't follow whose patch does what. But here's what I find acceptable, from a high level.
> 
> * The semantics as presented by the documentation must be preserved. os.urandom() and other operations that declare they're safe for cryptographic use must remain safe for cryptographic use.
> * "import random" must not block.
> * "import hashlib" must not block.
>
> Is there a patch set that accomplishes that?
I *think* nonblocking_urandom_noraise.patch will solve the 90+ second start up without affecting os.urandom which should solve the first one (once the already applied patch gets reverted), but I'm afraid I don't know C well enough to meaningfully review that for accuracy.
None of the current patches solve the second without invalidating the first, but it would be, I believe, an additional patch ontop of nonblocking_urandom_noraise.patch.
The third is already the case.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2016年06月07日 17:52:01	dstufft	set	recipients: + dstufft, lemburg, rhettinger, doko, vstinner, larry, christian.heimes, matejcik, ned.deily, alex, skrah, python-dev, martin.panter, ztane, Lukasa, thomas-petazzoni, Colm Buckley
2016年06月07日 17:52:01	dstufft	set	messageid: <1465321921.55.0.629558740358.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016年06月07日 17:52:01	dstufft	link	issue26839 messages
2016年06月07日 17:52:01	dstufft	create

homepage