Issue 2302: Uses of SocketServer.BaseServer.shutdown have a race (original) (raw)

Created on 2008-03-16 15:15 by jyasskin, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
race_free_shutdown.patch jyasskin,2008-03-16 15:15
shutdown.patch pitrou,2010-04-17 21:39
Messages (6)
msg63579 - (view) Author: Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin) * (Python committer) Date: 2008-03-16 15:15
With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent: any later serve_forever calls would return immediately. A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions?
msg66364 - (view) Author: Rafael Zanella (zanella) Date: 2008-05-07 18:16
>With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before >serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way >for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and >allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty >complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent: >any later serve_forever calls would return immediately. Never thought of using the SocketServer taht way, wouldn't the person doing this bunch of shutdown()s and serve_forever()s be better off using handle_request() on a loop instead ? >A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns >a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of >putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions? I don't think I understand this part, what loop do you refer to ?
msg103431 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-17 20:51
After a bit of investigation, this issue seems to be exactly why test_httpservers sometimes hangs. The patch looks complicated to me, though; I don't think we really have to support the multiple shutdowns case.
msg103433 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-17 21:39
Here is a simpler patch. It also fixes the wrong use of a lock instead of an event in test_httpservers. With this patch, test_httpservers runs forever without freezing.
msg103626 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-19 19:46
By the way, getting rid of poll_interval for a file descriptor is easy under Unix, but wouldn't work under Windows (where select() only takes sockets, not arbitrary file descriptors).
msg104173 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-25 22:28
Fixed with a test in r80484 (trunk), r80486 (2.6), r80487 (py3k), r80491 (3.1).
History
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:56:31 admin set github: 46555
2010-04-25 22:28:59 pitrou set status: open -> closedmessages: + keywords:patch, patchresolution: fixedstage: resolved
2010-04-19 19:46:16 pitrou set keywords:patch, patchmessages: +
2010-04-17 21:39:04 pitrou set keywords:patch, patchfiles: + shutdown.patchmessages: +
2010-04-17 20:51:23 pitrou set priority: normalversions: + Python 3.1, Python 2.7, Python 3.2nosy: + pitroumessages: + keywords:patch, patch
2008-06-04 02:13:29 giampaolo.rodola set nosy: + giampaolo.rodola
2008-05-07 18:16:15 zanella set nosy: + zanellamessages: +
2008-03-16 22:46:56 jyasskin set keywords:patch, patchassignee: jyasskin
2008-03-16 17:20:30 jyasskin link issue1193577 superseder
2008-03-16 15:15:55 jyasskin create