Author lemburg
Recipients Arach, Arfrever, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, eric.snow, fx5, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, gz, haypo, jcea, lemburg, loewis, mark.dickinson, merwok, neologix, pitrou, skorgu, skrah, terry.reedy, tim.peters, v+python, zbysz
Date 2012-02-06.20:14:40
SpamBayes Score 1.26898e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4F3034AC.8080407@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <4F302DB0.3080804@egenix.com>
Content
Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote:
> Dave Malcolm wrote:
>> The release managers have pronounced:
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115892.html
>> Quoting that email:
>>> 1. Simple hash randomization is the way to go. We think this has the
>>> best chance of actually fixing the problem while being fairly
>>> straightforward such that we're comfortable putting it in a stable
>>> release.
>>> 2. It will be off by default in stable releases and enabled by an
>>> envar at runtime. This will prevent code breakage from dictionary
>>> order changing as well as people depending on the hash stability.
> 
> Right, but that doesn't contradict what I wrote about adding
> env vars to fix a seed and optionally enable using a random
> seed, or adding collision counting as extra protection for
> cases that are not addressed by the hash seeding, such as
> e.g. collisions caused by 3rd types or numbers.

... at least I hope not :-)
History
Date User Action Args
2012-02-06 20:14:41lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, loewis, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, pitrou, haypo, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, merwok, grahamd, Arfrever, v+python, alex, zbysz, skrah, dmalcolm, gz, neologix, Arach, Mark.Shannon, eric.snow, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, PaulMcMillan, fx5, skorgu
2012-02-06 20:14:40lemburglinkissue13703 messages
2012-02-06 20:14:40lemburgcreate