On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:06:45PM -0700, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2016 01:01 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> >So yes, I think 3.5.2 should restore the 2.6-3.4 behavior of os.urandom(),
>
> That makes... five of us I think ;-) (Larry Guido Barry Tim David)
>
>
> >and the NEW APIs in secrets should use the "best available randomness
> >(even if it blocks)"
>
> I'm not particular about how the new API is spelled. However, I do
> think os.getrandom() should be exposed as a thin wrapper over
> getrandom() in 3.6. That would permit Python programmers to take
> maximal advantage of the features offered by their platform. It would
> also permit the secrets module to continue to be written in pure Python.
A big +1 for that.
Will there be platforms where os.getrandom doesn't exist? If not, then
secrets can just rely on it, otherwise what should it do?
if hasattr(os, 'getrandom'):
return os.getrandom(n)
else:
# Fail? Fall back on os.urandom?
--
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/archive%40mail-archive.com
