I've received some enthusiastic emails from someone who wants to
revive restricted mode. He started out with a bunch of patches to the
CPython runtime using ctypes, which he attached to an App Engine bug:
Based on his code (the file secure.py is all you need, included in
secure.tar.gz) it seems he believes the only security leaks are
__subclasses__, gi_frame and gi_code. (I have since convinced him that
if we add "restricted" guards to these attributes, he doesn't need the
functions added to sys.)
I don't recall the exploits that Samuele once posted that caused the
death of rexec.py -- does anyone recall, or have a pointer to the
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Alright, I will re-submit with the contents pasted. I never use double
backquotes as I think them rather ugly; that is the work of an editor
or some automated program in the chain. Plus, it also messed up my
line formatting and now I have lines with one word on them... Anyway,
the contents of PEP 3145:
Title: Asynchronous I/O For subprocess.Popen
Author: (James) Eric Pruitt, Charles R. McCreary, Josiah Carlson
Type: Standards Track
In its present form, the subprocess.Popen implementation is prone to
dead-locking and blocking of the parent Python script while waiting on data
from the child process.
A search for "python asynchronous subprocess" will turn up numerous
accounts of people wanting to execute a child process and communicate with
it from time to time reading only the data that is available instead of
blocking to wait for the program to produce data   . The current
behavior of the subprocess module is that when a user sends or receives
data via the stdin, stderr and stdout file objects, dead locks are common
and documented  . While communicate can be used to alleviate some of
the buffering issues, it will still cause the parent process to block while
attempting to read data when none is available to be read from the child
There is a documented need for asynchronous, non-blocking functionality in
subprocess.Popen    . Inclusion of the code would improve the
utility of the Python standard library that can be used on Unix based and
Windows builds of Python. Practically every I/O object in Python has a
file-like wrapper of some sort. Sockets already act as such and for
strings there is StringIO. Popen can be made to act like a file by simply
using the methods attached the the subprocess.Popen.stderr, stdout and
stdin file-like objects. But when using the read and write methods of
those options, you do not have the benefit of asynchronous I/O. In the
proposed solution the wrapper wraps the asynchronous methods to mimic a
I have been maintaining a Google Code repository that contains all of my
changes including tests and documentation  as well as blog detailing
the problems I have come across in the development process .
I have been working on implementing non-blocking asynchronous I/O in the
subprocess.Popen module as well as a wrapper class for subprocess.Popen
that makes it so that an executed process can take the place of a file by
duplicating all of the methods and attributes that file objects have.
There are two base functions that have been added to the subprocess.Popen
class: Popen.send and Popen._recv, each with two separate implementations,
one for Windows and one for Unix based systems. The Windows
implementation uses ctypes to access the functions needed to control pipes
in the kernel 32 DLL in an asynchronous manner. On Unix based systems,
the Python interface for file control serves the same purpose. The
different implementations of Popen.send and Popen._recv have identical
arguments to make code that uses these functions work across multiple
When calling the Popen._recv function, it requires the pipe name be
passed as an argument so there exists the Popen.recv function that passes
selects stdout as the pipe for Popen._recv by default. Popen.recv_err
selects stderr as the pipe by default. "Popen.recv" and "Popen.recv_err"
are much easier to read and understand than "Popen._recv('stdout' ..." and
"Popen._recv('stderr' ..." respectively.
Since the Popen._recv function does not wait on data to be produced
before returning a value, it may return empty bytes. Popen.asyncread
handles this issue by returning all data read over a given time
The ProcessIOWrapper class uses the asyncread and asyncwrite functions to
allow a process to act like a file so that there are no blocking issues
that can arise from using the stdout and stdin file objects produced from
a subprocess.Popen call.
 [ python-Feature Requests-1191964 ] asynchronous Subprocess
 Daily Life in an Ivory Basement : /feb-07/problems-with-subprocess
 How can I run an external command asynchronously from Python? - Stack
 18.1. subprocess - Subprocess management - Python v2.6.2 documentation
 18.1. subprocess - Subprocess management - Python v2.6.2 documentation
 Issue 1191964: asynchronous Subprocess - Python tracker
 Module to allow Asynchronous subprocess use on Windows and Posix
platforms - ActiveState Code
 subprocess.rst - subprocdev - Project Hosting on Google Code
 subprocdev - Project Hosting on Google Code
 Python Subprocess Dev
This P.E.P. is licensed under the Open Publication License;
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 22:56, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin(a)python.org> wrote:
> 2009/9/7 Eric Pruitt <eric.pruitt(a)gmail.com>:
>> Hello all,
>> I have been working on adding asynchronous I/O to the Python
>> subprocess module as part of my Google Summer of Code project. Now
>> that I have finished documenting and pruning the code, I present PEP
>> 3145 for its inclusion into the Python core code. Any and all feedback
>> on the PEP (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3145/) is appreciated.
> Hi Eric,
> One of the reasons you're not getting many response is that you've not
> pasted the contents of the PEP in this message. That makes it really
> easy for people to comment on various sections.
> BTW, it seems like you were trying to use reST formatting with the
> text PEP layout. Double backquotes only mean something in reST.
Which I noticed since it's cited in the BeOpen license we still refer
to in LICENSE. Since pythonlabs.com itself is still up, it probably
isn't much work to make the logos.html URI work again, but I don't know
who maintains that page.
Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less.
Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy
indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou
two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.
I see several problems with the two hex-conversion function pairs that
1. binascii.hexlify and binascii.unhexlify
2. bytes.fromhex and bytes.hex
bytes.hex is not implemented, although it was specified in PEP 358.
This means there is no symmetrical function to accompany bytes.fromhex.
Both pairs perform the same function, although The Zen Of Python suggests
"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
I do not understand why PEP 358 specified the bytes function pair although
it mentioned the binascii pair...
bytes.fromhex may receive spaces in the input string, although
binascii.unhexlify may not.
I see no good reason for these two functions to have different features.
binascii.unhexlify may receive both input types: strings or bytes, whereas
bytes.fromhex raises an exception when given a bytes parameter.
Again there is no reason for these functions to be different.
binascii.hexlify returns a bytes type - although ideally, converting to hex
always return string types and converting from hex should always return
IMO there is no meaning of bytes as an output of hexlify, since the output
representation of other bytes.
This is also the suggested behavior of bytes.hex in PEP 358
Problems #4 and #5 call for a decision about the input and output of the
functions being discussed:
Option A : Strict input and output
unhexlify (and bytes.fromhex) may only receives string and may only return
hexlify (and bytes.hex) may only receives bytes and may only return strings
Option B : Robust input and strict output
unhexlify (and bytes.fromhex) may receive bytes and strings and may only
hexlify (and bytes.hex) may receive bytes or strings and may only return
Of course we may also consider a third option, which will allow the return
all functions to be robust (perhaps specified in a keyword argument), but as
I wrote in
the description of problem #5, I see no sense in that.
Note that PEP 3137 describes: "... the more strict definitions of encoding
and decoding in
Python 3000: encoding always takes a Unicode string and returns a bytes
sequence, and decoding
always takes a bytes sequence and returns a Unicode string." - suggesting
To repeat problems #4 and #5, the current behavior does not match any
* The return type of binascii.hexlify should be string, and this is not the
As for the input:
* Option A is not the current behavior because binascii.unhexlify may
receive both input types.
* Option B is not the current behavior because bytes.fromhex does not allow
bytes as input.
To fix these issues, three changes should be applied:
1. Deprecate bytes.fromhex. This fixes the following problems:
#4 (go with option B and remove the function that does not allow bytes
#2 (the binascii functions will be the only way to "do it")
#1 (bytes.hex should not be implemented)
2. In order to keep the functionality that bytes.fromhex has over unhexlify,
the latter function should be able to handle spaces in its input (fix #3)
3. binascii.hexlify should return string as its return type (fix #5)
recently I had a use case where I wanted to use logging in two
completely separate parts of the same process. One of them
needs to create instances a specific Logger subclass, while the
other is fine with the default loggers.
I got around the problem of the unique root node by using two
Managers (and then using Manager.getLogger() instead of
getLogger()), but I can only set the loggerClass globally.
Making the loggerClass configurable per manager would solve the
problem for me, and AFAICS since most applications don't use
different managers anyway, there should not be any detrimental
effects. What do you think?
I've just updated the Launchpad mirrors for the 4 active Python branches,
trunk, py3k, 2.6, and 3.1. These used to mirror the defunct Bazaar branches
on code.python.org but it's probably been 7 months or so since those were
regularly updated. Now the Launchpad branches sync against the read-only
Subversion branches at http://svn.python.org, so they should remain up-to-date
(within the re-sync timeframe of about 4 hours).
This means you can once again use Bazaar to get local branches of Python, and
you can of course push your own branches to Launchpad. I believe you can even
use the bzr-svn plugin to commit changes back to the Subversion master, though
I have not yet tried this.
To get a local branch, just do any of the following:
% bzr branch lp:python (for trunk)
% bzr branch lp:python/2.6
% bzr branch lp:python/py3k
% bzr branch lp:python/3.1
(It's fairly easy to create new mirrors for other Subversion branches,
e.g. Python 2.5; just drop me an email if you want them.)
If you're going to create a lot of branches you probably want to put them in a
shared repository. E.g.
% bzr init-repo pythonbzr
% cd pythonbzr
% bzr branch lp:python/py3k
Bazaar 2.0 or better is recommended. For me, it took about 5m to check the
first branch out from Launchpad, and then about 30s or so for each subsequent
For 2.7/3.2, I am in the process of removing modules in Distutils that
can be replaced by calls to existing functions in stdlib. For
instance, "dir_util" and "file_util" (old modules from the Python 1.x
era) are going away in favor of calls to shutil (and os), so the
Distutils package gets lighter.
Another module I would like to move away from Distutils is
"archive_util". It contains helpers to build archives, whether they
are zip or tar files. I propose to move those useful functions into
shutil, as this seems the most logical place.
I also propose to maintain this "shutil" module for now on (no one is
declared as a maintainer in maintainers.rst) since Distutils will
become a heavy user of its functions.
Any objections/opinions ?
Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
I've recently seen a couple of references to 3.1.2 go by in checkins
which made me wonder whether dates have been proposed yet for updates to
either 3.1 or 2.6. I don't recall seeing any and I didn't see any
references in the PEPs. Some advance warning would be nice. I assume
that some critical problem could trigger planning for an update on short
notice; is there a time-limit trigger as well?