I thought you are right. Here is the source code in python 2.7.11:

long
PyObject_Hash(PyObject *v)
{
    PyTypeObject *tp = v->ob_type;
    if (tp->tp_hash != NULL)
        return (*tp->tp_hash)(v);
    /* To keep to the general practice that inheriting
     * solely from object in C code should work without
     * an explicit call to PyType_Ready, we implicitly call
     * PyType_Ready here and then check the tp_hash slot again
     */
    if (tp->tp_dict == NULL) {
        if (PyType_Ready(tp) < 0)
            return -1;
        if (tp->tp_hash != NULL)
            return (*tp->tp_hash)(v);
    }
    if (tp->tp_compare == NULL && RICHCOMPARE(tp) == NULL) {
        return _Py_HashPointer(v); /* Use address as hash value */
    }
    /* If there's a cmp but no hash defined, the object can't be hashed */
    return PyObject_HashNotImplemented(v);
}

If object has hash function, it will be used. If not, _Py_HashPointer will be used. Which _Py_HashSecret are not used.
And I checked reference of _Py_HashSecret. Only bufferobject, unicodeobject and stringobject use _Py_HashSecret.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:55AM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 1:48 AM, Christoph Groth wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Recent Python versions randomize the hashes of str, bytes and datetime
> >objects.  I suppose that the choice of these three types is the result
> >of a compromise.  Has this been discussed somewhere publicly?
>
> Search archives of this list... it was discussed at length.

There's a lot of discussion on the mailing list. I think that this is
the very start of it, in Dec 2011:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/115116.html

and continuing into 2012, for example:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115577.html
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115690.html

and a LOT more, spread over many different threads and subject lines.

You should also read the issue on the bug tracker:

http://bugs.python.org/issue13703


My recollection is that it was decided that only strings and bytes need
to have their hashes randomized, because only strings and bytes can be
used directly from user-input without first having a conversion step
with likely input range validation. In addition, changing the hash for
ints would break too much code for too little benefit: unlike strings,
where hash collision attacks on web apps are proven and easy, hash
collision attacks based on ints are more difficult and rare.

See also the comment here:

http://bugs.python.org/issue13703#msg151847



> >I'm not a web programmer, but don't web applications also use
> >dictionaries that are indexed by, say, tuples of integers?
>
> Sure, and that is the biggest part of the reason they were randomized.

But they aren't, as far as I can see:

[steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash((23, 42, 99, 100)))"
1071302475
[steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash((23, 42, 99, 100)))"
1071302475

Web apps can use dicts indexed by anything that they like, but unless
there is an actual attack, what does it matter? Guido makes a good point
about security here:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129181.html



> I think hashes of all types have been randomized, not _just_ the list
> you mentioned.

I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case. Using 3.6 from the repo
(admittedly not fully up to date though), I can see hash randomization
working for strings:

[steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash('abc'))"
11601873
[steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash('abc'))"
-2009889747

but not for ints:

[steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash(42))"
42
[steve@ando 3.6]$ ./python -c "print(hash(42))"
42


which agrees with my recollection that only strings and bytes would be
randomized.



--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/shell909090%40gmail.com



--
彼節者有間，而刀刃者無厚；以無厚入有間，恢恢乎其於游刃必有餘地矣。
blog: http://shell909090.org/blog/
twitter: @shell909090
about.me: http://about.me/shell909090