STINNER Victor added the comment: > This is VERY far from our historical policy for backports. Python 2.7 is > supposed to be getting more stable over time (that is one of its chief > virtues). We don't want to risk the kind of mini-catastrophe that got > published in 3.6 (issue29085).
I don't consider that the issue #29085 is a catastrophe and it's just a bug which was already fixed. Moreover, Python 2.7 and 3.5 don't have _PyOS_URandomNonblock() function and so the _random module is not impacted by this issue. > If you want to push for this, there needs to be a thorough discussion on > python-dev (there are tons of possible backports that could be made if the > rationale was "I would prefer to use the same code on all maintained > versions"). Sorry, I suffered from the previous discussion about random numbers. I don't want to reopen a new discussion, people would become crazy again. I just fixed Python/random.c in support glibc 2.24 that's all. If someone wants the cool getrandom() function/syscall on Python 2.7, please open a new issue. It doesn't really enhance the security, it's just a matter of avoid a file descriptor. ---------- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29188> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
