Bug 1301913
Summary: | Incorrect rand() result when seed >=2^31 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Piyush Bhoot <pbhoot> |
Component: | glibc | Assignee: | Carlos O'Donell <codonell> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | qe-baseos-tools-bugs |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 5.11 | CC: | ashankar, fweimer, mnewsome, pbhoot, pfrankli, rzaleski |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-02-01 17:22:42 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Piyush Bhoot
2016-01-26 11:20:27 UTC
It seems to me that the upstream change you identified was made to bring 32-bit and 64-bit platforms in line, giving both them the same sequence with the same seed. This means that the behavior in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 is more correct than the previous behavior in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. We do not want to change Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 at this point because other customers could expect that rand keeps generating the same number sequence from the same seed, even after a glibc upgrade within the same major release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. Please let us know if this addresses your concerns. This request was not resolved in time for the current release. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Hi, Thanks for details, this addresses customer concern. We good to close the bug. Best Regards, Piyush Given that we're not going to fix this for RHEL5 I'm marking this CLOSED/WONTFIX. Please open another bug if you have any more questions. |