[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Ok, I pushed the patch to 3.4. Thanks for the report! -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker _

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset e2b234f5bf7d by Antoine Pitrou in branch 'default': Issue #16105: When a signal handler fails to write to the file descriptor registered with ``signal.set_wakeup_fd()``, report an exception instead of ignoring the error. http://hg.python.org/cpytho

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: Looks good. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Updated patch using PyErr_WriteUnraisable(). -- stage: -> patch review Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31325/wakeup_fd_error2.patch ___ Python tracker _

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: Looks like PyErr_WriteUnraisable can be a better choice. Exceptions at random execution points looks a little bit dirty at least for this case. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Here is a cleaned up patch. However, I'm wondering if raising an error is a good idea. The effect will be to get cryptic OSErrors at random execution points. Perhaps using PyErr_WriteUnraisable would be better? -- versions: -Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Py

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: I've followed latest suggestions. Test and code updated. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27598/issue16105_v4.patch ___ Python tracker __

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: This patch retries write() until success if errno == EINTR. There is also a test. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27428/issue16105_v3.patch ___ Python tracker __

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Charles-François Natali added the comment: > You mean retry one time or until success? Until success. It should also come with a test. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: > Raising an error in case the signal can't be written to the FD > (because the other end didn't drain the pipe/socket) seems reasonable. > You should just retry on EINTR (although any sane implementation > shouldn't return EINTR on non-blocking write, I don't think

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Charles-François Natali added the comment: >> Why limit to EBADF? You could also have EPIPE, EINVAL and many other errors. >> The only error you may not want to report is EAGAIN. > > Charles, > You're right! If all errno cases get covered in the patch, will It looks > reasonable? Raising an er

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: > Why limit to EBADF? You could also have EPIPE, EINVAL and many other errors. > The only error you may not want to report is EAGAIN. Charles, You're right! If all errno cases get covered in the patch, will It looks reasonable? -- __

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Charles-François Natali added the comment: > A signal handler can be called anymore, anywhere. How do you handle such > exception in an application? "handle": do something better than exit the > apllication. Well, chances are you won't, but failing with an explicit error message is better than s

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

STINNER Victor added the comment: > A signal handler can be called anymore, anywhere. Oopos: anywhere/anytime. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

STINNER Victor added the comment: A signal handler can be called anymore, anywhere. How do you handle such exception in an application? "handle": do something better than exit the apllication. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Charles-François Natali added the comment: > I agree with Felipe that issues here can be difficult to diagnose. For > example the fd could get mistakingly closed, but the write() EBADF would then > be ignored and the expected signal wakeups would be lost. Yeah, but it's also completely possibl

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Charles-François Natali added the comment: > since Antonie mentioned Py_AddPendingCall I came up with a patch describing > what he proposed. > > Let me know if this patch can be improved or discarded(if the problem > requires a more sophisticated solution). In case of improvement I can also >

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: Hello, since Antonie mentioned Py_AddPendingCall I came up with a patch describing what he proposed. Let me know if this patch can be improved or discarded(if the problem requires a more sophisticated solution). In case of improvement I can also submit another

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > The problem is that it's called from the signal handler, so there's not > much we can do here (and certainly not log a warning or raise an > exception). However, I think the errno could be passed via the "void *" argument to Py_AddPendingCall. Then checksign

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Charles-François Natali added the comment: > I would not say that is a bug, but there is a write(wakeup_fd) call > with ignored return code and maybe this can be improved to an output > to stderr, or maybe a better solution. The problem is that it's called from the signal handler, so there's not

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Felipe Cruz added the comment: I would not say that is a bug, but there is a write(wakeup_fd) call with ignored return code and maybe this can be improved to an output to stderr, or maybe a better solution. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

STINNER Victor added the comment: Is it really a bug? A file descriptor is just an integer, it may be replaced later. Passed fd may be writable when set_wakeup_fd() is called, but then become read-only. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

Changes by STINNER Victor : -- nosy: +haypo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.

[issue16105] Pass read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd

New submission from Felipe Cruz: It's possible to set a read only FD to signal.set_wakeup_fd(fd) Since write call[1] inside 'trip_signal' return code is ignored, no error will be raised. An untested solution is to call fcntl in this FD to check presence of write flags. 1 - http://hg.python.