I've run into issue 25939 (https://bugs.python.org/issue25939) when trying
to deploy a python webapp with IIS on Windows. This issue is preventing us
from deploying the app to production as the workaround AFAICT requires
running the app under an admin account.
Apologies if this is an inappropri
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think it's probably line 2649 in typeobject.c, in type_new():
>
> type->tp_alloc = PyType_GenericAlloc;
I pondered it but it doesn't seem to be that. Isn't `type_new` called
*after* PyType_Type.tp_alloc has been called? I thought t
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:12 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:44, MRAB wrote:
> >
> > Is this something that we need to worry about?
> >
> > Extremely severe bug leaves dizzying number of software and devices
> vulnerable
> >
> http://arst
Does python.org serve any Python binaries that are statically linked
with a vulnerable glibc? That seems to be the question. If not, it's
up to the downstream distributions.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev
wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:44, MRAB wrote:
>>
>> Is t
On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:44, MRAB wrote:
>
> Is this something that we need to worry about?
>
> Extremely severe bug leaves dizzying number of software and devices vulnerable
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/extremely-severe-bug-leaves-dizzying-number-of-apps-and-devices-vulnerable/
Is t
Is this something that we need to worry about?
Extremely severe bug leaves dizzying number of software and devices
vulnerable
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/extremely-severe-bug-leaves-dizzying-number-of-apps-and-devices-vulnerable/
___
Pytho
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 at 20:59 Mike Kaplinskiy
wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I hope this is the right list for this sort of thing (python-ideas seemed
> more far-fetched).
>
> For some context: there is currently a issue with pex that causes
> sys.modules lookups to stop working for __main__. In turns th
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:00 PM Mike Kaplinskiy
> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I hope this is the right list for this sort of thing (python-ideas seemed
>> more far-fetched).
>>
>> For some context: there is currently a issue with pex
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:55AM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> On 2/16/2016 1:48 AM, Christoph Groth wrote:
>> >Recent Python versions randomize the hashes of str, bytes and datetime
>> >objects. I suppose that the choice of these three types is the result
>> >of a
On 02/17/2016 08:49 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
int objects have their own hash algorithm, built in to long_hash() in
Objects/longobject.c. The hash of an int is the value of the int, unless
it's -1 or doesn't fit into the native type.
C
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
> int objects have their own hash algorithm, built in to long_hash() in
> Objects/longobject.c. The hash of an int is the value of the int, unless
> it's -1 or doesn't fit into the native type.
Can someone elaborate on this special case, pl
Christoph Groth writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Yes. There's only one hash function used, which operates on byte
> > streams IIRC. That function now has a random offset. The details of
> > hashing each type are in the serializations to byte streams.
>
> Could you please elaborat
On 02/16/2016 09:22 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> I think hashes of all types have been randomized, not _just_ the list
> you mentioned.
Yes. There's only one hash function used, which operates on byte
streams IIRC. That function now has a random offset. The
Demur Rumed gmail.com> writes:
> I've personally benchmarked this fork with positive results.
I'm skeptical of claims like this. What did you benchmark exactly, and with
which results?
I don't think changing the opcode encoding per se will bring any large
benefit...
Regards
Antoine.
_
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Glenn Linderman writes:
>
> > I think hashes of all types have been randomized, not _just_ the list
> > you mentioned.
>
> Yes. There's only one hash function used, which operates on byte
> streams IIRC. That function now has a random offset. The details of
> hash
15 matches
Mail list logo