Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

iafisher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#21

Post by Joker_vD »

krackers wrote: post #19
nine_k wrote: post #5

POSIX signals are broken by design, alas: https://lwn.net/Articles/414618/ Python or not, almost nothing is safe inside a signal handler.

>almost nothing is safe That's a bit of an overstatement? There's a list of things that you _can_ call, and fairly useful ones too like `write` https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html

There is also a charming statement in POSIX standard that

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling abort(), raise(),
    [CX] [Option Start] kill(), pthread_kill(), or sigqueue(), [Option End] the
    behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static
    storage duration other than by assigning a value to an object declared as
    volatile sig_atomic_t, or if the signal handler calls any function in the
    standard library other than one of the functions listed in Signal Concepts.
You literally can't read any global/static variables and you can only write to global/static variables that are declared to be volatile sig_atomic_t. This tremendously shrinks the amount of useful work you can do with the signal-safe functions from the standard library.

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#22

Post by nottorp »

Joker_vD wrote: post #21
krackers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>almost nothing is safe That's a bit of an overstatement? There's a list of things that you _can_ call, and fairly useful ones too like `write` https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html

There is also a charming statement in POSIX standard that If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling abort(), raise(), [CX] [Option Start] kill(), pthread_kill(), or sigqueue(), [Option End] the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static storage duration other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or if the signal handler calls any fu…

It may help if you think of them as interrupts and not something that comes in your message queue.

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#23

Post by Joker_vD »

nottorp wrote: post #22
Joker_vD wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a charming statement in POSIX standard that If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling abort(), raise(), [CX] [Option Start] kill(), pthread_kill(), or sigqueue(), [Option End] the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static storage duration other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or if the signal handler calls any fu…

It may help if you think of them as interrupts and not something that comes in your message queue.

No, I understand that. I just find it deeply ironic that when an interrupt/signal arrives, pretty much the only thing you can do to handle it, is to raise some flag, then leave the handler and continue doing whatever you were doing in a message loop. Like, why even bother with supporting function callbacks in sigaction() etc? Just have each thread have a chunk of volatile memory where the kernel writes info about the arrived signals, and that's it, that's your signal handling framework.

In fact, here is another, a very fresh, example from POSIX: [0]. There is an example at how to use SIGWINCH signal handler with tcgetwinsize(). Just look at this thing of terrible beauty, notice that SIG_ATOMIC_MAX is not required to bigger than a byte's worth of data, and also read the whole of "APPLICATION USAGE" section. "Multi-threaded applications should avoid the signal handler idiom in general", gee, I wonder why. And of course, the signal may never be generated in the first place, so "[s]uch processes must periodically poll the current terminal window size if needed". What a solid technical foundation to build race-free, bug-free applications on top of.

[0] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/t...

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#24

Post by tyffanypastecf »

zbentley wrote: post #8
IgorPartola wrote: post #2

What’s really fun is mixing signal handling and threads, especially on Linux. There is a simple way to do it and about a thousand ways that include at least one gotcha.

What’s the simple way? Self-pipe?

Self-pipe, yeah, except in Python you don't have to build it. signal.set_wakeup_fd() is exactly that: hand it an fd (or a socket on Windows) and the interpreter writes the signal number to it. Then you select/poll that fd in your normal loop and do the actual work outside the handler. asyncio uses it under the hood for add_signal_handler.

The other one that plays nicely with threads is blocking the signals everywhere with pthread_sigmask and parking one dedicated thread in sigwait(). Both are in the stdlib on Unix.

signalfd is nicer than either but it's Linux only, which is why set_wakeup_fd usually wins if you care about portability.

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#25

Post by nottorp »

Joker_vD wrote: post #23
nottorp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may help if you think of them as interrupts and not something that comes in your message queue.

No, I understand that. I just find it deeply ironic that when an interrupt/signal arrives, pretty much the only thing you can do to handle it, is to raise some flag, then leave the handler and continue doing whatever you were doing in a message loop. Like, why even bother with supporting function callbacks in sigaction() etc? Just have each thread have a chunk of volatile memory where the kernel writes info about the…

"From boils, mildew and dirt / I've brought forth new beauty and new worth." [1]

Let's call them crippled interrupts. As long as you don't think of them as a message queue...

In their defense, the original signals were there mostly for "handle this or I'll terminate you" conditions. Then stuff got bolted on...

[1] Possibly LLM hallucinated translation from a Romanian poet. Although it did give me a link to a paywalled essay that I couldn't verify.

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#26

Post by zaphirplane »

knome wrote: post #7
nine_k wrote: post #5

POSIX signals are broken by design, alas: https://lwn.net/Articles/414618/ Python or not, almost nothing is safe inside a signal handler.

the first line of the article points out that python isn't run in the POSIX C handler. that just sets a flag for the interpreter to act on. the python issue is an unsafe re-entrant handling strategy in the interpreter.

Too funny

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#27

Post by westurner »

Joker_vD wrote: post #23
nottorp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may help if you think of them as interrupts and not something that comes in your message queue.

No, I understand that. I just find it deeply ironic that when an interrupt/signal arrives, pretty much the only thing you can do to handle it, is to raise some flag, then leave the handler and continue doing whatever you were doing in a message loop. Like, why even bother with supporting function callbacks in sigaction() etc? Just have each thread have a chunk of volatile memory where the kernel writes info about the…

How would you fix signals and do you propose a complete set of patterns for safe concurrency? And so why is there limited scope for signal handlers?

Should you use signal handlers with eBPF?

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#29

Post by gpderetta »

Joker_vD wrote: post #21
krackers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>almost nothing is safe That's a bit of an overstatement? There's a list of things that you _can_ call, and fairly useful ones too like `write` https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html

There is also a charming statement in POSIX standard that If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling abort(), raise(), [CX] [Option Start] kill(), pthread_kill(), or sigqueue(), [Option End] the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static storage duration other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or if the signal handler calls any fu…

C++11/C11 memory model and atomics provide a more well funded model to interact with signal handler. I'm not sure if POSIX fully embraced it, but it will work well in practice.

Re: Is it safe to call print in a Python signal handler?

#30

Post by kstenerud »

westurner wrote: post #27
Joker_vD wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I understand that. I just find it deeply ironic that when an interrupt/signal arrives, pretty much the only thing you can do to handle it, is to raise some flag, then leave the handler and continue doing whatever you were doing in a message loop. Like, why even bother with supporting function callbacks in sigaction() etc? Just have each thread have a chunk of volatile memory where the kernel writes info about the…

How would you fix signals and do you propose a complete set of patterns for safe concurrency? And so why is there limited scope for signal handlers? Should you use signal handlers with eBPF?

It's not really possible to make them safer without hurting performance. Signals break the C virtual machine guarantees (atomics, memory consistency, register consistency, etc), and the only way to re-establish them for edge cases like signals would be to cripple the rest of the program with extra checks (basically making ALL data volatile).
Post reply on HN