I thought you are right. Here is the source code in python 2.7.11:
long
PyObject_Hash(PyObject *v)
{
PyTypeObject *tp = v->ob_type;
if (tp->tp_hash != NULL)
return (*tp->tp_hash)(v);
/* To keep to the general practice that inheriting
* solely from object in C code should work without
* an explicit call to PyType_Ready, we implicitly call
* PyType_Ready here and then check the tp_hash slot again
*/
if (tp->tp_dict == NULL) {
if (PyType_Ready(tp) < 0)
return -1;
if (tp->tp_hash != NULL)
return (*tp->tp_hash)(v);
}
if (tp->tp_compare == NULL && RICHCOMPARE(tp) == NULL) {
return _Py_HashPointer(v); /* Use address as hash value */
}
/* If there's a cmp but no hash defined, the object can't be hashed */
return PyObject_HashNotImplemented(v);
}
If object has hash function, it will be used. If not, _Py_HashPointer will
be used. Which _Py_HashSecret are not used.
And I checked reference of _Py_HashSecret. Only bufferobject, unicodeobject
and stringobject use _Py_HashSecret.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:55AM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > On 2/16/2016 1:48 AM, Christoph Groth wrote:
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >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 compromise. Has this been discussed somewhere publicly?
> >
> > Search archives of this list... it was discussed at length.
>
> There's a lot of discussion on the mailing list. I think that this is
> the very start of it, in Dec 2011:
>
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/115116.html
>
> and continuing into 2012, for example:
>
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115577.html
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115690.html
>
> and a LOT more, spread over many different threads and subject lines.
>
> You should also read the issue on the bug tracker:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue13703
>
>
> My recollection is that it was decided that only strings and bytes need
> to have their hashes randomized, because only strings and bytes can be
> used directly from user-input without first having a conversion step
> with likely input range validation. In addition, changing the hash for
> ints would break too much code for too little benefit: unlike strings,
> where hash collision attacks on web apps are proven and easy, hash
> collision attacks based on ints are more difficult and rare.
>
> See also the comment here:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue13703#msg151847
>
>
>
> > >I'm not a web programmer, but don't web applications also use
> > >dictionaries that are indexed by, say, tuples of integers?
> >
> > Sure, and that is the biggest part of the reason they were randomized.
>
> But they aren't, as far as I can see:
>
> [steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash((23, 42, 99, 100)))"
> 1071302475
> [steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash((23, 42, 99, 100)))"
> 1071302475
>
> Web apps can use dicts indexed by anything that they like, but unless
> there is an actual attack, what does it matter? Guido makes a good point
> about security here:
>
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129181.html
>
>
>
> > I think hashes of all types have been randomized, not _just_ the list
> > you mentioned.
>
> I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case. Using 3.6 from the repo
> (admittedly not fully up to date though), I can see hash randomization
> working for strings:
>
> [steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash('abc'))"
> 11601873
> [steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash('abc'))"
> -2009889747
>
> but not for ints:
>
> [steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash(42))"
> 42
> [steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash(42))"
> 42
>
>
> which agrees with my recollection that only strings and bytes would be
> randomized.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/shell909090%40gmail.com
>
--
彼節者有間，而刀刃者無厚；以無厚入有間，恢恢乎其於游刃必有餘地矣。
blog: http://shell909090.org/blog/
twitter: @shell909090 <https://twitter.com/shell909090>
about.me: http://about.me/shell909090
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
