Message267812
| Author | larry |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Colm Buckley, Lukasa, Theodore Tso, alex, christian.heimes, doko, dstufft, larry, lemburg, martin.panter, matejcik, ned.deily, python-dev, rhettinger, skrah, thomas-petazzoni, vstinner, ztane |
| Date | 2016-06-08.09:01:24 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1465376484.23.0.344793502846.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I don't know if anyone literally still uses BSD. But on FreeBSD, /dev/urandom can block. So let me revise my statement slightly. Developers on platform X know how *their* /dev/urandom behaves. They should rightly expect that os.urandom() is a thin wrapper around their local /dev/urandom. If their /dev/urandom doesn't block, then os.urandom() shouldn't block. If their /dev/urandom blocks, then it's acceptable that their os.urandom() would block. What I'm trying to avoid here is the surprising situation where someone is using Python on a system where /dev/urandom will never block, and os.urandom() blocks. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-06-08 09:01:24 | larry | set | recipients: + larry, lemburg, rhettinger, doko, vstinner, christian.heimes, matejcik, ned.deily, alex, skrah, python-dev, martin.panter, ztane, dstufft, Lukasa, thomas-petazzoni, Colm Buckley, Theodore Tso |
| 2016-06-08 09:01:24 | larry | set | messageid: <1465376484.23.0.344793502846.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-06-08 09:01:24 | larry | link | issue26839 messages |
| 2016-06-08 09:01:24 | larry | create | |