Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 23, 2017. It is now read-only.

Fix remove_signal_handler to not to crash after PyOS_FiniInterrupts - #456

Open
1st1 wants to merge 2 commits into
python:masterfrom
1st1:signals
Open

Fix remove_signal_handler to not to crash after PyOS_FiniInterrupts#456
1st1 wants to merge 2 commits into
python:masterfrom
1st1:signals

Conversation

@1st1

@1st11st1 commented Nov 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Comment threadasyncio/unix_events.py Outdated
if self._interpreter_shutting_down:
# The interpreter is being shutdown. `PyOS_FiniInterrupts`
# was already called and it has restored all signals already.
return

@1st11st1Nov 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of just return, we can emit a warning that the loop wasn't properly closed. @gvanrossum what do you think about that?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only in debug mode. But frankly I don't understand this code.

@gvanrossumgvanrossum changed the title Fix remove_signal_handler to not to crush after PyOS_FiniInterruptsFix remove_signal_handler to not to crash after PyOS_FiniInterruptsNov 7, 2016
Comment threadasyncio/unix_events.py Outdated
if self._interpreter_shutting_down:
# The interpreter is being shutdown. `PyOS_FiniInterrupts`
# was already called and it has restored all signals already.
return

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should return a bool.

@gvanrossumgvanrossum left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't understand all this well enough to know whether this is a good idea or not. We really need to find someone else who wants to co-own asyncio -- ATM I feel my role is mostly that of giving you permission to commit what you see fit and I am not actually comfortable with this -- we'll end up with there being only one person who understands asyncio and that's not enough for such an important stdlib module.

Comment threadasyncio/unix_events.py Outdated
if self._interpreter_shutting_down:
# The interpreter is being shutdown. `PyOS_FiniInterrupts`
# was already called and it has restored all signals already.
return

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only in debug mode. But frankly I don't understand this code.

@gvanrossum

gvanrossum commented Nov 7, 2016 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@1st1

1st1 commented Nov 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

I don't understand all this well enough to know whether this is a good idea or not. We really need to find someone else who wants to co-own asyncio -- ATM I feel my role is mostly that of giving you permission to commit what you see fit and I am not actually comfortable with this -- we'll end up with there being only one person who understands asyncio and that's not enough for such an important stdlib module.

I agree. I'm myself not feeling comfortable, even two of us doesn't seem to be enough to support asyncio.

@asvetlov, @methane and @Haypo: are you interested to help us with asyncio? At least to offer help with PRs and participate in related discussions.

Do we know that the atexit handler will always be called early enough?

Py_FinalizeEx first calls atexit functions and only after that it calls PyOS_FiniInterrupts(). The latter cleans up the internal state of signals module, making it useless. So yes, we're confident about atexit.

@asvetlov

asvetlov commented Nov 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I think the PR makes sense: we raise ResourceWarning for unclosed transports in debug mode.
I believe we should do the same for unclosed loop too.

@gvanrossum

gvanrossum commented Nov 9, 2016 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@vxgmichel

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Shouldn't it be fixed in signalmodule.c instead? (see my comment in PR #396)

@gvanrossum

gvanrossum commented Nov 9, 2016 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@1st1

1st1 commented Nov 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Yes, the bug in _signal can (and should) be fixed, and I have a working patch for that. My worry is that it might be a bit too late to do that for 3.6. I'll submit the patch and ask Ned's opinion.

@1st1

1st1 commented Nov 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

I've no idea what's going on. I can reproduce this bug with python installed from MacPorts. I can't reproduce it with python I build from source.

@1st1

1st1 commented Nov 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

The bug is the following program:

importsignalimportasynciodeffoo():
passasyncdefbar():
passdefmain():
loop=asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.add_signal_handler(signal.SIGINT, lambda: None)
loop.add_signal_handler(signal.SIGHUP, lambda: None)
loop.run_until_complete(bar())
if__name__=="__main__":
main()

It should spit out something like this:

Exception ignored in: <bound method BaseEventLoop.__del__ of <_UnixSelectorEventLoop running=False closed=True debug=False>>
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.5/lib/python3.5/asyncio/base_events.py", line 431, in __del__
File "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.5/lib/python3.5/asyncio/unix_events.py", line 58, in close
File "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.5/lib/python3.5/asyncio/unix_events.py", line 139, in remove_signal_handler
File "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.5/lib/python3.5/signal.py", line 47, in signal
TypeError: signal handler must be signal.SIG_IGN, signal.SIG_DFL, or a callable object

@gvanrossum

gvanrossum commented Nov 9, 2016 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@1st1

1st1 commented Nov 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Maybe. It should be something that changes how & when objects are GCed. The above traceback happens when objects are GCed after the signals module is finalized (and that's what I've seen in reports from asyncio and uvloop users). I'll try to get to the bottom of this.

@vxgmichel

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@1st1
I tried to reproduce the bug with python 3.5 and python 3.6 (built from the latest sources) with your test for asyncio and this one for signal:

import _signal
class A:
def __del__(self):
_signal.signal(_signal.SIGTERM, _signal.SIG_DFL)
a = A()

My results:

asyncio testsignal test
python 3.5TypeErrorTypeError
python 3.6No ErrorTypeError

Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@1st1@gvanrossum@asvetlov@vxgmichel@brettcannon@the-knights-who-say-ni