August 2023 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:114380] [Ruby master Bug#19837] Concurrent calls to Process.waitpid2 misbehave on Ruby 3.1 & 3.2
by kjtsanaktsidis (KJ Tsanaktsidis) 09 Sep '23

09 Sep '23

Issue #19837 has been reported by kjtsanaktsidis (KJ Tsanaktsidis). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19837: Concurrent calls to Process.waitpid2 misbehave on Ruby 3.1 & 3.2 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19837 * Author: kjtsanaktsidis (KJ Tsanaktsidis) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.1.4p236 (2023-07-26 revision a8670865c0) [arm64-darwin22] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- On Ruby 3.1 & 3.2, if you have one thread blocked into a directed call to `Process.waitpid2` with a pid specified, a concurrent call to `Process.waitpid2 -1` will not be able to find & reap any other terminated child process, even one with a different pid that is not individually being waited on. I've attached a Ruby program which should terminate but doesn't as a result of this bug, as well as a C program which demonstrates that the underlying syscalls (at least on Linux) do behave how you would expect. My reproduction creates two processes; a long-running process that does not exit, and a short one which does. There is a background thread calling `Process.waitpid2` on the long process. Then, a concurrent call to `Process.waitpid2 -1` does not notice that the short-running process has exited. My `wait_bug.rb` program _does_ work properly and terminate on the current master branch of Ruby; I assume this is because all of the MJIT-related process management stuff with the waiting_pids & stuff has been cleaned up as part of the MJIT -> RJIT refactoring. Because of this, I'm not sure exactly how to make a patch; should I open a pair of PRs targeting the `ruby_3_2` and `ruby_3_1` branch? Thanks! ---Files-------------------------------- wait_bug.c (1.55 KB) wait_bug.rb (735 Bytes) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 6

[ruby-core:111572] [Ruby master Bug#19297] Don't download content from internet to execute Ruby test suite
by vo.x (Vit Ondruch) 06 Sep '23

06 Sep '23

Issue #19297 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19297: Don't download content from internet to execute Ruby test suite https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19297 * Author: vo.x (Vit Ondruch) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Trying to build Ruby 3.2.0 for Fedora and execute its test suite via `make check` as we always did [1], the test suite suddenly fails (while it was working with commit:git|c5eefb7f37): ~~~ ... snip ... C-API Util function ruby_strtod - converts a string to a double and returns the remaining string - returns 0 and the full string if there's no numerical value Finished in 45.737677 seconds 3827 files, 31635 examples, 177877 expectations, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 tagged ./miniruby -I/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0/lib -I. -I.ext/common /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0/tool/runruby.rb --extout=.ext -- --disable-gems -C "/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0" bin/gem install --no-document \ --install-dir .bundle --conservative "bundler" "rake" "rspec:~> 3" #"ruby-prof" ERROR: Could not find a valid gem 'bundler' (>= 0), here is why: Unable to download data from https://rubygems.org/ - SocketError: Failed to open TCP connection to rubygems.org:443 (getaddrinfo: Temporary failure in name resolution) (https://rubygems.org/specs.4.8.gz) ERROR: Could not find a valid gem 'rspec' (~> 3), here is why: Unable to download data from https://rubygems.org/ - SocketError: Failed to open TCP connection to rubygems.org:443 (getaddrinfo: Temporary failure in name resolution) (https://rubygems.org/specs.4.8.gz) make: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0/redhat-linux-build' make: *** [uncommon.mk:1464: yes-test-syntax-suggest-prepare] Error 2 ~~~ This is obviously due to the test suite trying to download `rspec` from the internet, while Fedora builders does not have internet access (and won't ever have for security reasons). If I am not mistaken, this is caused by commit:git|cae53842735237ccf71a13873fd0d1ae7f165582. Now 1) Can this be fixed? 2) Can the tarball be always self contained? [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/631163e3b8a51ed610528181aabe0d… -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

8 11

[ruby-core:111499] [Ruby master Bug#19281] SyntaxError if first argument of command call has semicolon inside parenthesis
by tompng (tomoya ishida) 04 Sep '23

04 Sep '23

Issue #19281 has been reported by tompng (tomoya ishida). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19281: SyntaxError if first argument of command call has semicolon inside parenthesis https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19281 * Author: tompng (tomoya ishida) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- These are syntax error ~~~ruby p (1;2),(3),(4) p (;),(),() a.b (1;2),(3),(4) a.b (;),(),() ~~~ I expect it to be syntax ok because the code below is syntax ok. ~~~ruby p (1),(2;3),(4;5) p (),(;),(;) a.b (1),(2;3),(4;5) a.b (),(;),(;) ~~~ It will be easy to traverse sexp if the sexp of first argument is same as others ~~~ruby Ripper.sexp "p (),(),()" # => [:program, [[:command, [:@ident, "p", [1, 0]], [:args_add_block, [[:paren, false], # [:paren, [[:void_stmt]]] [:paren, [[:void_stmt]]], [:paren, [[:void_stmt]]]], false]]]] Ripper.sexp "p (1),(2),(3)" # => [:program, [[:command, [:@ident, "p", [1, 0]], [:args_add_block, [[:paren, [:@int, "1", [1, 3]]], # [:paren, [[:@int, "1", [1, 3]]]] [:paren, [[:@int, "2", [1, 7]]]], [:paren, [[:@int, "3", [1, 11]]]]], false]]]] ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 2

[ruby-core:114488] [Ruby master Bug#19847] Cannot install Ruby 3.2.2 on Windows using Visual Studio 2019
by dmwhitne (David Whitney) 01 Sep '23

01 Sep '23

Issue #19847 has been reported by dmwhitne (David Whitney). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19847: Cannot install Ruby 3.2.2 on Windows using Visual Studio 2019 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19847 * Author: dmwhitne (David Whitney) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.2 (2023-03-30 revision e51014f9c0) [x64-mswin64_140] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I am attempting to build/install Ruby 3.2.2 open-source code on Windows using Visual Studio 2019. These are the steps I followed: Using an x64 Native Tools Command Prompt (for Visual Studio 2019).. 1. cd C:\tmp\ruby-3.2.2 2. win32\configure.bat --prefix=C:\Ruby-3.2.2 --target=x64-mswin64 --disable-install-doc 3. nmake 4. nmake install The error (on Step 4): Downloading bundled gem files... `RubyGems' were not loaded. `error_highlight' was not loaded. `did_you_mean' was not loaded. `syntax_suggest' was not loaded. c:/tmp/ruby-3.2.2/tool/downloader.rb:4:in `require': cannot load such file -- fileutils (LoadError) from c:/tmp/ruby-3.2.2/tool/downloader.rb:4:in `<top (required)>' from -e:in `require' NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'c:\tmp\RUBY-3~1.2\ruby.exe' : return code '0x1' Stop. Is this a bug, or operator error? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2

[ruby-core:114433] [Ruby master Bug#19843] Promote bigdecimal as bundled gems at Ruby 3.4
by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 01 Sep '23

01 Sep '23

Issue #19843 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19843: Promote bigdecimal as bundled gems at Ruby 3.4 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19843 * Author: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I triaged target list for bundled gems at https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19351. After that, I resolved bigdecimal dependency from our test suite at https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/3ef6364a988ab24ca7fdbb7d1b6840b2a40f1466 I propose to promote `bigdecimal` as bundled gems at Ruby 3.4. @mrkn Is it okay? I will add `bigdecimal` to `Gem::BUNDLED_GEMS::SINCE` for Ruby 3.3.0-preview2. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 4

[ruby-core:114276] [Ruby master Bug#19784] String#delete_prefix! problem
by inversion (Yura Babak) 01 Sep '23

01 Sep '23

Issue #19784 has been reported by inversion (Yura Babak). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19784: String#delete_prefix! problem https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19784 * Author: inversion (Yura Babak) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.2 (2023-03-30 revision e51014f9c0) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Here is the snipped and the question is in the comments: ``` ruby fp = 'with_BOM_16.txt' body = File.read(fp).force_encoding('UTF-8') p body # "\xFF\xFE1\u00001\u0000" p body.start_with?("\xFF\xFE") # true body.delete_prefix!("\xFF\xFE") # !!! why doesn't work? p body # "\xFF\xFE1\u00001\u0000" p body.start_with?("\xFF\xFE") # true body[0, 2] = '' p body # "1\u00001\u0000" p body.start_with?("\xFF\xFE") # false ``` Works same on Linux (ruby 3.2.2 (2023-03-30 revision e51014f9c0) [x86_64-linux]) and Windows (ruby 3.2.2 (2023-03-30 revision e51014f9c0) [x64-mingw-ucrt]) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 9

[ruby-core:114607] [Ruby master Feature#19075] Add Array#bsearch_last and #bsearch_last_index
by kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Issue #19075 has been updated by kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita). > I consider that the return value in this case was indeterministic, and this assertion is too implementation specific. I agree. I think this assertion is not based on the specification. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19075: Add Array#bsearch_last and #bsearch_last_index https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19075#change-104430 * Author: kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6611 (I'm going to talk about `Array` here, but the same argument can be made for `Range`. If `Array#bsearch_last` is acceptable, I will work also for `Range`.) Ruby's bsearch returns the first element which satisfies the given block. ```ruby # Search the first element greater than 18 array = [10, 15, 20, 25] array.bsearch { |x| x > 18 } # => 20 ``` If we want the last element, we need to invert the condition and step backward. ```ruby # Search the last element less than 18 array = [10, 15, 20, 25] index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 18) } array[index-1] # => 15 ``` Of course, we need to consider `nil` and the boundary. ```ruby # Search the last element less than 100 index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 100) } # => nil if index.nil? array.last # => 25 else array[index-1] end ``` ```ruby # Search the last element less than 0 index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 0) } # => 0 if index.nil? array.last elsif index == 0 nil else array[index-1] end ``` This is where mistakes can easily be made, so I propose `Array#bsearch_last` and `Array#bsearch_last_index`. `Array#bsearch_last` returns the last element which satisfies the given block. `Array#bsearch` requires that all false-evaluating elements precede all true-evaluating elements. As is clear from the meaning of the method, conversely to `bsearch`, `bsearch_last` requires that all true-evaluating elements precede all false-evaluating elements. (If `bsearch_last` is acceptable, the name "find-minimum mode" should be changed.) ```ruby array = [10, 15, 20, 25] array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 18 } # => 15 array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 100 } # => 25 array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 0 } # => nil ``` There are several possible options for find-any mode. (1) `bsearch_last` does not support find-any mode. A block for `bsearch_last` must return `true`, `false` or `nil`. ``` [1, 2, 3].bsearch_last { 0 } # => TypeError ``` My pull request tentatively includes this implementation. (2) `bsearch_last` supports find-any mode and it behaves like `bsearch`. `bsearch` with find-any mode returns an element, for which the block returns zero. If multiple elements satisfy the condition, it is not determined which of them will be returned. It is conceivable that `bsearch_last` behaves in the same way as `bsearch`. ``` # current behavior # It is not specified whether `:b`, `:c`, or `:d` is returned. [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :c] ``` (3) `bsearch_last` supports find-any mode and returns the last element. Make `bsearch` return the first element. Change the behavior of `bsearch` to return the first element for which the block returns zero. `bsearch_last` returns the last element for which the block returns zero. ``` # Change it like this: [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :b] [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch_last { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :d] ``` (If this option is adopted, the name "find-any mode" should be renamed.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:114606] [Ruby master Feature#19075] Add Array#bsearch_last and #bsearch_last_index
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Issue #19075 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). The PR fails at spec/ruby/core/array/bsearch_index_spec.rb:67. ```ruby it "returns the middle element when block always returns zero" do @array.bsearch_index { |x| 0 }.should == 2 end ``` I consider that the return value in this case was indeterministic, and this assertion is too implementation specific. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19075: Add Array#bsearch_last and #bsearch_last_index https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19075#change-104429 * Author: kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6611 (I'm going to talk about `Array` here, but the same argument can be made for `Range`. If `Array#bsearch_last` is acceptable, I will work also for `Range`.) Ruby's bsearch returns the first element which satisfies the given block. ```ruby # Search the first element greater than 18 array = [10, 15, 20, 25] array.bsearch { |x| x > 18 } # => 20 ``` If we want the last element, we need to invert the condition and step backward. ```ruby # Search the last element less than 18 array = [10, 15, 20, 25] index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 18) } array[index-1] # => 15 ``` Of course, we need to consider `nil` and the boundary. ```ruby # Search the last element less than 100 index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 100) } # => nil if index.nil? array.last # => 25 else array[index-1] end ``` ```ruby # Search the last element less than 0 index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 0) } # => 0 if index.nil? array.last elsif index == 0 nil else array[index-1] end ``` This is where mistakes can easily be made, so I propose `Array#bsearch_last` and `Array#bsearch_last_index`. `Array#bsearch_last` returns the last element which satisfies the given block. `Array#bsearch` requires that all false-evaluating elements precede all true-evaluating elements. As is clear from the meaning of the method, conversely to `bsearch`, `bsearch_last` requires that all true-evaluating elements precede all false-evaluating elements. (If `bsearch_last` is acceptable, the name "find-minimum mode" should be changed.) ```ruby array = [10, 15, 20, 25] array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 18 } # => 15 array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 100 } # => 25 array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 0 } # => nil ``` There are several possible options for find-any mode. (1) `bsearch_last` does not support find-any mode. A block for `bsearch_last` must return `true`, `false` or `nil`. ``` [1, 2, 3].bsearch_last { 0 } # => TypeError ``` My pull request tentatively includes this implementation. (2) `bsearch_last` supports find-any mode and it behaves like `bsearch`. `bsearch` with find-any mode returns an element, for which the block returns zero. If multiple elements satisfy the condition, it is not determined which of them will be returned. It is conceivable that `bsearch_last` behaves in the same way as `bsearch`. ``` # current behavior # It is not specified whether `:b`, `:c`, or `:d` is returned. [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :c] ``` (3) `bsearch_last` supports find-any mode and returns the last element. Make `bsearch` return the first element. Change the behavior of `bsearch` to return the first element for which the block returns zero. `bsearch_last` returns the last element for which the block returns zero. ``` # Change it like this: [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :b] [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch_last { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :d] ``` (If this option is adopted, the name "find-any mode" should be renamed.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:114605] [Ruby master Feature#19075] Add Array#bsearch_last and #bsearch_last_index
by kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Issue #19075 has been updated by kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita). I made another pull request, which is my latest proposal: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/8339 This new PR implements the option (3): * bsearch and bsearch_index take the argument `target', whose possible values are :first or :last. * find-by-number mode (former find-any mode) returns the first (or last) element for which the block returns zero. * find-any mode has been renamed to find-by-number mode. * find-minimum mode has been renamed to find-by-boolean mode. ``` a = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11] a.bsearch {|x| x >= 6 } # => 7 a.bsearch(target: :first) {|x| x >= 6 } # same as a.bsearch { ... } a.bsearch(target: :last) {|x| x <= 6 } # => 5 a.bsearch(target: :first) {|x| 0 } # => 2 a.bsearch(target: :last) {|x| 0 } # => 11 ``` ---------------------------------------- Feature #19075: Add Array#bsearch_last and #bsearch_last_index https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19075#change-104427 * Author: kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6611 (I'm going to talk about `Array` here, but the same argument can be made for `Range`. If `Array#bsearch_last` is acceptable, I will work also for `Range`.) Ruby's bsearch returns the first element which satisfies the given block. ```ruby # Search the first element greater than 18 array = [10, 15, 20, 25] array.bsearch { |x| x > 18 } # => 20 ``` If we want the last element, we need to invert the condition and step backward. ```ruby # Search the last element less than 18 array = [10, 15, 20, 25] index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 18) } array[index-1] # => 15 ``` Of course, we need to consider `nil` and the boundary. ```ruby # Search the last element less than 100 index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 100) } # => nil if index.nil? array.last # => 25 else array[index-1] end ``` ```ruby # Search the last element less than 0 index = array.bsearch_index { |x| !(x < 0) } # => 0 if index.nil? array.last elsif index == 0 nil else array[index-1] end ``` This is where mistakes can easily be made, so I propose `Array#bsearch_last` and `Array#bsearch_last_index`. `Array#bsearch_last` returns the last element which satisfies the given block. `Array#bsearch` requires that all false-evaluating elements precede all true-evaluating elements. As is clear from the meaning of the method, conversely to `bsearch`, `bsearch_last` requires that all true-evaluating elements precede all false-evaluating elements. (If `bsearch_last` is acceptable, the name "find-minimum mode" should be changed.) ```ruby array = [10, 15, 20, 25] array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 18 } # => 15 array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 100 } # => 25 array.bsearch_last { |x| x < 0 } # => nil ``` There are several possible options for find-any mode. (1) `bsearch_last` does not support find-any mode. A block for `bsearch_last` must return `true`, `false` or `nil`. ``` [1, 2, 3].bsearch_last { 0 } # => TypeError ``` My pull request tentatively includes this implementation. (2) `bsearch_last` supports find-any mode and it behaves like `bsearch`. `bsearch` with find-any mode returns an element, for which the block returns zero. If multiple elements satisfy the condition, it is not determined which of them will be returned. It is conceivable that `bsearch_last` behaves in the same way as `bsearch`. ``` # current behavior # It is not specified whether `:b`, `:c`, or `:d` is returned. [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :c] ``` (3) `bsearch_last` supports find-any mode and returns the last element. Make `bsearch` return the first element. Change the behavior of `bsearch` to return the first element for which the block returns zero. `bsearch_last` returns the last element for which the block returns zero. ``` # Change it like this: [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :b] [[1,:a], [2, :b], [2, :c], [2, :d], [3, :e]].bsearch_last { |a, b| 2 <=> a } # => [2, :d] ``` (If this option is adopted, the name "find-any mode" should be renamed.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:111269] [Ruby master Bug#19230] The openssl backend of securerandom is no longer needed
by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Issue #19230 has been reported by mame (Yusuke Endoh). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19230: The openssl backend of securerandom is no longer needed https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19230 * Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.1.3p185 (2022-11-24 revision 1a6b16756e) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- securerandom first checks if Random.urandom is available ([Line 77](https://github.com/ruby/securerandom/blob/5bfe7d6c163f7a8a45af8d2fc377f…) and if not available, it uses the openssl backend as a degeneration. However, the openssl backend does not work because it internally uses Random.urandom ([Line 55](https://github.com/ruby/securerandom/blob/5bfe7d6c163f7a8a45af8d2fc377f…) to create a seed. This issue is found by @hanachin. ``` $ ruby -ve 'def Random.urandom(*); raise; end; require "securerandom"; p SecureRandom.bytes(10)' ruby 3.1.3p185 (2022-11-24 revision 1a6b16756e) [x86_64-linux] -e:1: warning: method redefined; discarding old urandom -e:1:in `urandom': unhandled exception from /home/mame/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/securerandom.rb:75:in `singleton class' from /home/mame/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/securerandom.rb:42:in `<module:SecureRandom>' from /home/mame/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/securerandom.rb:41:in `<top (required)>' from <internal:/home/mame/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in `require' from <internal:/home/mame/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in `require' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` There has been this bug since commit:abae70d6ed63054d7d01bd6cd80c1b5b98b93ba3, which made the urandom backend as default and left the openssl backend just for degeneration. I think no one need the openssl anymore because no one has reported this bug for such a long time. How about removing it? ```diff diff --git a/lib/securerandom.rb b/lib/securerandom.rb index 07ae048634..32b76a2137 100644 --- a/lib/securerandom.rb +++ b/lib/securerandom.rb @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@ # # It supports the following secure random number generators: # -# * openssl # * /dev/urandom # * Win32 # @@ -46,21 +45,6 @@ def bytes(n) private - def gen_random_openssl(n) - @pid = 0 unless defined?(@pid) - pid = $$ - unless @pid == pid - now = Process.clock_gettime(Process::CLOCK_REALTIME, :nanosecond) - OpenSSL::Random.random_add([now, @pid, pid].join(""), 0.0) - seed = Random.urandom(16) - if (seed) - OpenSSL::Random.random_add(seed, 16) - end - @pid = pid - end - return OpenSSL::Random.random_bytes(n) - end - def gen_random_urandom(n) ret = Random.urandom(n) unless ret @@ -77,13 +61,7 @@ def gen_random_urandom(n) Random.urandom(1) alias gen_random gen_random_urandom rescue RuntimeError - begin - require 'openssl' - rescue NoMethodError - raise NotImplementedError, "No random device" - else - alias gen_random gen_random_openssl - end + raise NotImplementedError, "No random device" end public :gen_random ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 5