[3.6] bpo-30039: Don't run signal handlers while resuming a yield fro…#1640
Merged
[3.6] bpo-30039: Don't run signal handlers while resuming a yield fro…#1640
Conversation
vstinner
reviewed
May 17, 2017
Misc/NEWS
Outdated
| the middle of resuming a chain of nested 'yield from' or 'await' | ||
| calls, it's now correctly delivered to the innermost frame. | ||
|
|
||
| bpo-12414: sys.getsizeof() on a code object now returns the sizes |
Member
|
@1st1 Can this be merged/closed so that we can eliminate the branch? |
vstinner
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2017
Member
vstinner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As written on the issue, IMHO the backport is small and safe, so LGTM.
Just pleeeease, fix the NEWS file!
49d0942 to
f80225c
Compare
Member
Author
…m stack (GH-1081) If we have a chain of generators/coroutines that are 'yield from'ing each other, then resuming the stack works like: - call send() on the outermost generator - this enters _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, which re-executes the YIELD_FROM opcode - which calls send() on the next generator - which enters _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, which re-executes the YIELD_FROM opcode - ...etc. However, every time we enter _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, the first thing we do is to check for pending signals, and if there are any then we run the signal handler. And if it raises an exception, then we immediately propagate that exception *instead* of starting to execute bytecode. This means that e.g. a SIGINT at the wrong moment can "break the chain" – it can be raised in the middle of our yield from chain, with the bottom part of the stack abandoned for the garbage collector. The fix is pretty simple: there's already a special case in _PyEval_EvalFrameEx where it skips running signal handlers if the next opcode is SETUP_FINALLY. (I don't see how this accomplishes anything useful, but that's another story.) If we extend this check to also skip running signal handlers when the next opcode is YIELD_FROM, then that closes the hole – now the exception can only be raised at the innermost stack frame. This shouldn't have any performance implications, because the opcode check happens inside the "slow path" after we've already determined that there's a pending signal or something similar for us to process; the vast majority of the time this isn't true and the new check doesn't run at all.. (cherry picked from commit ab4413a)
f80225c to
fa09db7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
…m stack (GH-1081)
If we have a chain of generators/coroutines that are 'yield from'ing
each other, then resuming the stack works like:
YIELD_FROM opcode
YIELD_FROM opcode
However, every time we enter _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, the first thing
we do is to check for pending signals, and if there are any then we
run the signal handler. And if it raises an exception, then we
immediately propagate that exception instead of starting to execute
bytecode. This means that e.g. a SIGINT at the wrong moment can "break
the chain" – it can be raised in the middle of our yield from chain,
with the bottom part of the stack abandoned for the garbage collector.
The fix is pretty simple: there's already a special case in
_PyEval_EvalFrameEx where it skips running signal handlers if the next
opcode is SETUP_FINALLY. (I don't see how this accomplishes anything
useful, but that's another story.) If we extend this check to also
skip running signal handlers when the next opcode is YIELD_FROM, then
that closes the hole – now the exception can only be raised at the
innermost stack frame.
This shouldn't have any performance implications, because the opcode
check happens inside the "slow path" after we've already determined
that there's a pending signal or something similar for us to process;
the vast majority of the time this isn't true and the new check
doesn't run at all..
(cherry picked from commit ab4413a)