Message125376
> "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 22:37:42 | loewis | set | recipients:
+ loewis, georg.brandl, nijel, pitrou, r.david.murray, neologix |
2011-01-04 22:37:40 | loewis | link | issue10824 messages |
2011-01-04 22:37:40 | loewis | create | |
|