On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:
> Two more small details to address, and then I think we're ready to start
> creating release candidates.
>
> - sys.flags.hash_randomization
>
> In the tracker issue, I had previously stated a preference that this flag
> only reflect the state of the -R command line option, not the
> $PYTHONHASHSEED environment variable. Well, that's not the way other
> options/envars such as -O/$PYTHONOPTIMIZE work. sys.flags.optimize gets
> set if either of those two things set it, so sys.flags.hash_randomization
> needs to follow that convention. Thus no change is necessary here.
>
> - sys.hash_seed
>
> In the same tracker issue, I expressed my opinion that the hash seed should
> be exposed in sys.hash_seed for reproducibility. There's a complication
> that Victor first mentioned in IRC, but I didn't quite understand the
> implications of at first. When PYTHONHASHSEED=random is set, there *is no*
> hash seed. We pull random data straight out of urandom and use that
> directly as the secret, so there's nothing to expose in sys.hash_seed.
>
> In that case, sys.hash_seed is pretty much redundant, since Python code could
> just check getenv('PYTHONHASHSEED') and be done with it. I don't think
> there's anything useful to expose to Python or communicated between Python
> executables when truly random hash data is used.
>
> Thus, unless there are objections, I consider the current state of the Python
> 2.6 branch to be finished wrt issue 13703.
+10
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
