Message 195903 - Python tracker

Message195903

Author	pitrou
Recipients	barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, georg.brandl, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, sbt, vajrasky, vstinner
Date	2013-08-22.15:20:14
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1346371474.5422328.1377184808830.JavaMail.root@zimbra10-e2.priv.proxad.net>
In-reply-to	<CAH_1eM1j6bsnMrEnhgYAYxnz_C9a2u5=U7CV+=tUuv2oDhHMUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Content
> IMO this patch has been rushed in and should be reverted for now. > It's still not async-signal safe, had typos, plus this problem noted > by Victor. That's not really a problem. You merely have to perturb the random state in the parent, so that the next child gets a different initial state. As pointed out in a mailing-list message, mixing in a constant could be enough to perturb the state. As for not being async-signal safe, it's only in the double fork() case, which is much less of an issue IMO.

Content

> IMO this patch has been rushed in and should be reverted for now.
> It's still not async-signal safe, had typos, plus this problem noted
> by Victor.

That's not really a problem. You merely have to *perturb* the random
state in the parent, so that the next child gets a different initial
state. As pointed out in a mailing-list message, mixing in a constant
could be enough to perturb the state.

As for not being async-signal safe, it's only in the double fork()
case, which is much less of an issue IMO.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2013-08-22 15:20:15	pitrou	set	recipients: + pitrou, barry, georg.brandl, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, neologix, python-dev, sbt, vajrasky
2013-08-22 15:20:15	pitrou	link	issue18747 messages
2013-08-22 15:20:14	pitrou	create