Sebastian Krause sebastian at realpath.org
Fri Jun 10 15:48:02 EDT 2016

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

David Mertz <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote:
> It feels to me like the correct spelling in 3.6 should probably be
> secrets.getrandom() or something related to that.

Since there already is a secrets.randbits(k), I would keep the
naming similar and suggest something like:

secrets.randbytes(k, *, nonblock=False)

With the argument "nonblock" you can control what happens when not
enough entropy is available: It either blocks or (if nonblock=True)
raises an exception. The third option, getting unsecure random data,
is simply not available in this function.

Then you can keep os.urandom() as it was in Python 3.4 and earlier,
but update the documentation to better warn about its behavior and
point developers to the secrets module.

Sebastian

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list