This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author loewis
Recipients georg.brandl, loewis, neologix, nijel, pitrou, r.david.murray
Date 2011-01-04.22:37:40
SpamBayes Score 0.0019817436
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> "It's a bug in random.c that doesn' t check for signal pending inside the
> read(2) code, so you have no chance to kill the process via signals until
> the read(2) syscall is finished, and it could take a lot of time before
> return, if the buffer given to the read syscall is very big..."
> I've had a quick look at the source code, and indeed, read(2) from
> /dev/urandom can now be interrupted by a signal, so looping seems to
> be justified.

No: if read(2) is interrupted, no data is returned, and exception is
raised. So it won't loop in that case, but raise the exception out of
urandom also (which is the right thing to do).
Date User Action Args
2011-01-04 22:37:42loewissetrecipients: + loewis, georg.brandl, nijel, pitrou, r.david.murray, neologix
2011-01-04 22:37:40loewislinkissue10824 messages
2011-01-04 22:37:40loewiscreate