On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pierre > > On Aug 21, 2015 22:01, "Pierre Joye" <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Anatol, > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2015 8:10 PM, "Anatol Belski" <anatol....@belski.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com] > > >> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 3:37 PM > > >> > To: Scott Arciszewski <sc...@paragonie.com> > > >> > Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com>; Trevor Suarez > > >> > <ric...@gmail.com>; > > >> > Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com>; PHP Internals > > >> > <internals@lists.php.net> > > >> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Recap - Core functions throwing exceptions in > > >> > PHP7 > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Scott Arciszewski > > >> > <sc...@paragonie.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Scott Arciszewski > > >> > >> <sc...@paragonie.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Trevor Suarez <ric...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >>>> Ah, I didn't realize this thread existed. I had just commented on > > >> > >>>> the old one, but the point still stands: > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> PHP 7.0 RC1 was just tagged. > > >> > >>>> Shouldn't this be a relatively high priority to fix/decide so we > > >> > >>>> don't end up with behavior that can't be fixed until PHP 8.0? > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:54 PM Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com> > > >> > >>>> wrote: > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > > >> > >>>>> > Okay, great, we have people on both sides on this discussion. I > > >> > >>>>> > hope nobody minds if I sit this part out. > > >> > >>>>> > > > >> > >>>>> > What specifics need to be discussed? Should somebody set up a > > >> > >>>>> > poll? (I don't know how to do that.) > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> You can find information on how to setup a poll in step 6 here: > > >> > >>>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> Regards, Niklas > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> I agree that this should be a relatively high priority. I'm not > > >> > >>> sure > > >> > >>> what the next steps would be. (Aside: I still have a PR I need to > > >> > >>> write that I've been holding off on until the fate of PHP 7's > > >> > >>> CSPRNG > > >> > >>> feature is determined.) > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> Can we reach some sort of consensus on throw new Exception vs throw > > >> > new Error? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> I think the best would be a RFC, not only for the decision itself > > >> > >> but > > >> > >> also to have a clear view about what will be changed or affected. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Cheers, > > >> > >> -- > > >> > >> Pierre > > >> > >> > > >> > >> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org > > >> > > > > >> > > Fine, let's do this: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1. Violate the feature freeze for this exceptional decision. > > >> > > 2. One of the folks in the camp that WANTS an RFC and a drawn out > > >> > > formal decision-making process opens it with a poll. > > >> > > 3. Give me voting karma. > > >> > > > > >> > > Let's NOT make the CSPRNG feature fail open. That is an absolutely > > >> > > terrible idea. > > >> > > > >> > My proposal/stance: > > >> > > > >> > Let's make random_* throw an Exception if it cannot connect to a random > > >> > source. And let's have it throw an TypeError if ZPP fails, or Error if > > >> > min >= max. > > >> > > > >> > The first two are consistent with existing exceptions. > > >> > > > >> > The third (Error if min>max) is where the contention lies. I'm > > >> > suggesting Error as > > >> > it's consistent with parameter errors in the sense that the type may be > > >> > correct, > > >> > but the value isn't (hence it's the same kind of error as a parameter > > >> > error, just a > > >> > different sub-classification. > > >> > > > >> > MHO is this is too important of a distinction to simply gloss over. > > >> > Having it return false (or null) will be a problem, as nobody will > > >> > perform the error > > >> > checks. And returning $x where `$x == 0` in a security context could be > > >> > incredibly > > >> > bad. As such, I think the security implications here outweigh nearly > > >> > all > > >> > of the > > >> > other concerns about consistency and convention. > > >> > > > >> > That's my opinion. I'll be happy to make the changes if a RM gives me > > >> > the green > > >> > light to do so. > > >> > > > >> The change being proposed was discussed once more in the RM circle and is > > >> being seen as inappropriate. > > >> > > >> The CSPRNG RFC and the implementation was voted. The change being > > >> proposed > > >> amends the paradigm of the current language behavior. Currently no effort > > >> has been done do discuss and work out the paradigm change. > > >> > > >> By today's terms, there are other functions which could require throwing > > >> instead of returning false for security reasons. Security being over BC > > >> was > > >> and is even in the patch versions, however how it is handled is related > > >> to > > >> the hard and deeply internal cases like memory corruption, etc. Having a > > >> decision that a return value is something security related has impact to > > >> the > > >> existing behavior. Having different technical requirements to the > > >> congeneric > > >> cases on the language level brings inconsistency. Producing inconsistent > > >> behaviors by one case, without any evaluation and clear course for other > > >> cases, without respecting the votes and code freeze is alarming. > > >> > > >> The current timeline doesn't allow for a proper solution of this topic in > > >> 7.0. The RMs recommendation is that everyone expressing a strong support > > >> in > > >> this thread for the behavior change either for core functions in general > > >> or > > >> particularly in the security context stands up for a proper solution in > > >> 7.1. > > >> If no one believes that a proper solution can exist in 7.1, then an > > >> inconsistency shouldn't exist in 7.0, except the community wants it to > > >> be so > > >> which brings it back to an RFC. With respect to everyone who voted on the > > >> original implementation of CSPRNG RFC and everyone else regarding the > > >> topic > > >> "throwing in the core functions" it should be accepted in the usual ways > > >> that are foreseen. > > > > > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and being transparent. > > > > > > There is one tiny thing I would point out though (which likely makes no > > > difference). When the random rfc was voted on, engine exceptions was not > > > accepted. It was a conscious decision by the contributors to not have the > > > function throw because nothing throws in core. That changed with the later > > > rfc. Hence why this was reopened. > > > > > > The discussion has been biked shedded to death. From before beta1. And > > > unfortunately it looks like it has just been bike shedded out of > > > contention > > > for 7.0, which is sad on many levels. > > > > > > But this is where we are today. While I think it is less than optimal, so > > > be > > > it. > > > > I do think as well it is better to solve this question for 7.0. It is > > a kind of big thing even the code changes may be small. Dealing with > > that for 7.1 and 7.0 will most likely be painful. > > > > However we have chosen to have a short timeline to release 7.0. We > > knew the risks of having such issues to solve. I personally would not > > mind too much to have a RFC for this case as long as it includes an > > option to slightly delay 7.0 if necessary. > > If that's what it will take I will happily draft one tomorrow morning. But if > the RMs are against it, I will respect that as well. Hence the dilemma. > > Anthony
For the sake of compatibility, I'll make the necessary changes to random_compat tonight. Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com> -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
