On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Joshua Chamas wrote:
Perhaps I should auto init srand() then for Apache::ASP
to make sure that its happening post fork? Something like
if(! DONE FOR CURRENT PID) {
srand();
}
For reproducability within Apache::ASP, all that has to
happen is someone
Hi,
OK, I have nailed down a second major headache I suffered from last week:
authentication keys for server generated emails which did appear to be not
as random as I hoped.
It seems that within Apache::ASP (probably mod_perl) the pseudo random
number generator (rand) is not reinitialized
Hi all,
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Ime Smits wrote:
It's not the first time I hear that playing around with srand is
bad, even perlfunc mentions that. Can anybody explain to me the
reason?
It's staggeringly difficult to generate a truly random number using a
computer. People go to conferences
Perhaps I should auto init srand() then for Apache::ASP
to make sure that its happening post fork? Something like
if(! DONE FOR CURRENT PID) {
srand();
}
For reproducability within Apache::ASP, all that has to
happen is someone initializing it to srand(something)
in one of their scripts.
| Yes, perl doesn't reset the 'random generator initialized' status on
| fork, which it arguably should:
For normal perl I can agree that fork() doesn't do something magic with the
pseudo random generator and just makes an exact clone of everything. Most of
us will only do expicit fork() with a
