castironpi at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 02:45:21 CET 2008
On Dec 18, 6:11 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar>
> En Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:35:58 -0200, Aaron Brady <castiro... at gmail.com>
> > On Dec 17, 7:16 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> >> En Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:46:32 -0200, Aaron Brady <castiro... at gmail.com>
> >> escribió:
> >> > On Dec 17, 5:05 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> En Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:21:38 -0200, Jeremy Sanders
> >> >> <jeremy+complangpyt... at jeremysanders.net> escribió:
> >> >> > It would be nice if Python created pipes that are properly
> >> >> inheritable by
> >> >> > default by child processes, as they're mostly used for IPC.
> >> >> I'd say it is a bug in os.pipe implementation; they should be
> >> >> inheritable
> >> >> by default, as in posix (after all, the code is in "posixmodule.c").
> >> > The code looks like this:
> >> > ok = CreatePipe(&read, &write, NULL, 0);
> >> > Py_END_ALLOW_THREADS
> >> > if (!ok)
> >> > return win32_error("CreatePipe", NULL);
> >> > read_fd = _open_osfhandle((Py_intptr_t)read, 0);
> >> > write_fd = _open_osfhandle((Py_intptr_t)write, 1);
> >> > 'If lpPipeAttributes is NULL, the handle cannot be inherited.' You
> >> > could populate a 'SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES' structure, or call
> >> > DuplicateHandle on both of them.
> >> > A patch would look like this:
> >> > SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES sattribs;
> >> > sattribs.nLength = sizeof(sattribs);
> >> > sattribs.lpSecurityDescriptor = NULL;
> >> > sattribs.bInheritHandle = TRUE;
> >> > ok = CreatePipe(&read, &write, &sattribs, 0);
> >> Yes, that's exactly how os.popen does it (in posixmodule.c)
> >> > This still doesn't answer whether the file descriptor return by
> >> > '_open_osfhandle' can be inherited too.
> >> It doesn't matter. The OS only cares about file handles, not C RTL
> >> structures.
> >> --
> >> Gabriel Genellina
> > Ah, I see. Was it an executive decision about what is Pythonic, or
> > just a bug? Do you think the patch would be accepted? I probably
> > ought to mimic a small Python embedding to see if it needs anything
> > else.
> I don't know - I guess someone (years ago) blindly just replaced the
> pipe() system call by a CreatePipe call without further analysis.
> This is how I would summarize the issue:
> Pros (of changing os.pipe() to return inheritable pipes):
> - it isn't explicitely documented whether os.pipe() returns inheritable
> pipes or not, so both versions are "right" according to the documentation.
> - if someone relies on pipes being non-inheritable on Windows, that is
> undocumented behaviour, and Python has the right to change it.
> - the change would improve POSIX compatibility, it mimics what os.pipe()
> does on those OS.
> - inheritable pipes are less surprising for guys coming from other OS
> - inheritable pipes are a lot more useful than non-inheritable ones when
> doing IPC (probably its main usage).
> - os.pipe has behaved that way since long time ago.
> - some programs *might* break, if they relied on pipes being
> non-inheritable on Windows, even if that was undocumented behaviour.
> Gabriel Genellina
Microsoft has this example:
It creates two descriptors (not handles) with '_pipe'. Then it spawns
a subprocess using 'spawnl', which correctly inherits a descriptor.
So, if 'Popen' could mimic 'spawnl', then 'os.pipe', and consequently,
'os.read', 'os.write', &c. could stay as is.
More information about the Python-list