-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
Fix remove_signal_handler to not to crash after PyOS_FiniInterrupts #456
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
if self._interpreter_shutting_down: | ||
# The interpreter is being shutdown. `PyOS_FiniInterrupts` | ||
# was already called and it has restored all signals already. | ||
return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
if self._interpreter_shutting_down: | ||
# The interpreter is being shutdown. `PyOS_FiniInterrupts` | ||
# was already called and it has restored all signals already. | ||
return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
if self._interpreter_shutting_down: | ||
# The interpreter is being shutdown. `PyOS_FiniInterrupts` | ||
# was already called and it has restored all signals already. | ||
return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Do we know that the atexit handler will always be called early enough?
|
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.
|
I think the PR makes sense: we raise |
OK, then LGTM.
|
If something needs to be changed in signalmodule.c please open an issue on
bugs.python.org.
|
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. |
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. |
The bug is the following program: import signal
import asyncio
def foo():
pass
async def bar():
pass
def main():
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:
|
Maybe they ran configure with different parameters or in a different
context or with a different version of Xcode?
|
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. |
@1st1
My results:
|
I think I've figured out what's going on with
remove_signal_handler
.This PR fixes: