SSL fix for OpenSSL-0.9.6+

[geekatcmu]

BPO	414326
Nosy	@akuchling
Files	socketmodule.patch: Patch for socketmodule.c

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2001-04-11.07:36:36.000>
created_at = <Date 2001-04-06.15:53:48.000>
labels = ['interpreter-core']
title = 'SSL fix for OpenSSL-0.9.6+'
updated_at = <Date 2001-04-11.07:36:36.000>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/geekatcmu'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2001-04-11.07:36:36.000>
actor = 'moshez'
assignee = 'moshez'
closed = True
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Interpreter Core']
creation = <Date 2001-04-06.15:53:48.000>
creator = 'geekatcmu'
dependencies = []
files = ['3249']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 414326
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['36290', '36291', '36292', '36293']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['moshez', 'akuchling', 'geekatcmu']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'rejected'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue414326'
versions = []

[geekatcmu]

With OpenSSL-0.9.6+, the PRNG must be properly seeded
before attempting any SSL operations. This patch,
courtesy of Greg Wilson <Greg.Wilson@baltimore.com>,
will call RAND_load_file with the value of the RANDFILE
environment variable.

[moshez]

Logged In: YES
user_id=11645

Andrew, I want a second opinion: is this considered a
feature or a bugfix? I'm leaning in the "feature" direction,
and 2.1 will have this anyway.

[akuchling]

Logged In: YES
user_id=11375

Hard to say. The SSL support is unusable on some platforms
without this (David Beazley claimed it was fatal on Solaris,
where there's no /dev/random to fall back to), but on the
other hand the
patch does add code that does something significantly new.
I'd call it "feature", too.

[moshez]

Logged In: YES
user_id=11645

I am sorry, but both me and AMK agree that this throws
something too big into the Python 2.0.1 release...
Please use 2.1, which fixed this bug in a similar way.
Sorry :(