That code I'm talking about didn't require a reentrant lock - the
algorithm really wasn't reentrant.
Let me clarify my point: I'm wondering why the non-reentrant lock
doesn't raise an exception immediately on this
erroneous situation.
I thought it could be altered, or at least we could add an option to
let a `threading.Lock` behave like a pthread
mutex in mode `PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK`: Disallow double locking by
same thread, disallow unlocking
by another thread.
However, after searching a bit more, I found a reference mentioning
current behavior in a docstring defined
in `_threadmodule.c`: "A lock is not owned by the thread that locked
it; another thread may unlock it.".
It was added in 75e9fc31d3a18068, a commit from 1998...
Since it's a well-documented behavior I guess it's here to stay. At
least the "unlock by another thread" part.
But I question the double locking.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 5:07 PM Barry Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 Mar 2020, at 22:53, Yonatan Goldschmidt
> > wrote:
> >
> > I recently debugged a program hang, eventually finding out it's a deadlock
> > of a single thread,
> > resulting from my usage of 2 libraries. One of them - call it library A -
> > is reentrant & runs code in
> > GC finalizers, while the other - library B - is not reentrant at all.
> > Library B held one of its `threading.Lock` locks, and during this period,
> > GC was invoked, running
> > finalizers of library A which call back into library B, now attempting to
> > take the lock again,
> > locking the thread forever.
> >
> > Considering how relatively common this scenario might be (Python, by
> > design, can preempt any user code
> > to run some other user code, due to GC finalizers), I was surprised Python
> > code is not protected
> > from this simple type of deadlock. It makes sense that while
> > `threading.RLock` allows for recursive
> > locking, `threading.Lock` will prevent it - raising an exception if you
> > attempt it.
> >
> > I might be missing something, but why isn't it the status? Why taking a
> > `threading.Lock` twice from
> > the same thread just hangs, instead of raising a friendly exception?
> > I ran a quick search in bpo but found nothing about this topic. I also
> > tried to
> > search this mailing list but couldn't find how to, so I grepped a few
> > random archives
> > but found nothing about it.
> >
> > Would be happy if anyone could shed some light on it...
>
> threading.Lock is not reentrant and its implementation does not allow
> detection of the problem
> from what I recall.
>
> In this case the code might want to use the threading.RLock that is reentrant.
> Of course there may be other issues in the code that prevent the finalizers
> working if it holds the lock.
>
> Barry
>
>
>
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
