expose posix_spawn(p)

[benjaminp]

BPO	20104
Nosy	@gpshead, @vstinner, @benjaminp, @ned-deily, @alex, @dhduvall, @vadmium, @serhiy-storchaka, @pablogsal, @miss-islington
PRs	bpo-20104: Expose posix_spawn in the os module #5109 bpo-20104: Expose posix_spawn in the os module #5109 bpo-20104: Fix memory leaks and error handling in posix spawn #5418 bpo-20104: Improve error handling and fix a reference leak in os.posix_spawn(). #6332 bpo-20104: Add os.posix_spawn documentation. #6334 [3.7] bpo-20104: Add os.posix_spawn documentation. (GH-6334) #6336 [3.7] bpo-20104: Improve error handling and fix a reference leak in os.posix_spawn(). (GH-6332) #6673 bpo-20104: Add flag capabilities to posix_spawn #6693 bpo-20104: Change the file_actions parameter of os.posix_spawn(). #6725 bpo-20104: Remove posix_spawn from 3.7 #6794
Dependencies	bpo-33191: Refleak in posix_spawn bpo-33441: Expose the sigset_t converter via private API

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/gpshead'
closed_at = <Date 2018-09-09.11:40:06.390>
created_at = <Date 2014-01-01.18:13:20.774>
labels = ['extension-modules', 'type-feature', '3.8']
title = 'expose posix_spawn(p)'
updated_at = <Date 2019-01-07.00:47:02.950>
user = 'https://github.com/benjaminp'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2019-01-07.00:47:02.950>
actor = 'vstinner'
assignee = 'gregory.p.smith'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2018-09-09.11:40:06.390>
closer = 'vstinner'
components = ['Extension Modules']
creation = <Date 2014-01-01.18:13:20.774>
creator = 'benjamin.peterson'
dependencies = ['33191', '33441']
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 20104
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 70.0
messages = ['207137', '207139', '213344', '222570', '222571', '222572', '269684', '289758', '289769', '289775', '289791', '311040', '311041', '311051', '311081', '311086', '311087', '311089', '311094', '311100', '311102', '311144', '311164', '311165', '311166', '314732', '314770', '314774', '314775', '314777', '314779', '314781', '314783', '314784', '314826', '315795', '315995', '315997', '316014', '316046', '316063', '316068', '316088', '316150', '316235', '316238', '316246', '316247', '316268', '316282', '316489', '316495', '316503', '316522', '316525', '316551', '316588', '316592', '316595', '317071', '317076', '317084', '317510', '323639', '324765', '324832', '324833', '324881', '324883', '333129']
nosy_count = 13.0
nosy_names = ['gregory.p.smith', 'vstinner', 'benjamin.peterson', 'ned.deily', 'alex', 'dhduvall', 'neologix', 'gennad', 'martin.panter', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'John Jones', 'pablogsal', 'miss-islington']
pr_nums = ['5109', '5109', '5418', '6332', '6334', '6336', '6673', '6693', '6725', '6794']
priority = None
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue20104'
versions = ['Python 3.8']

[benjaminp]

posix_spawn is a nice, efficient replacement for fork()/exec(). We should expose it and possibly use it in subprocess where possible.

[gpshead]

Unless it could replace the fork+exec code path in its entirety, which I do not believe is possible, I see posix_spawn() as a distraction and additional maintenance burden with no benefit.

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7999959899/functions/posix_spawn.html

Read the RATIONALE section. The posix_spawn API was not created to make subprocess creation easier (i'd argue that it is the same burden to setup a proper call to posix_spawn as it is to do everything right for fork and exec).

One notable thing posix_spawn() does not support: setsid() (start_new_session=True) of the child process. Obviously it also couldn't handle the arbitrary preexec_fn but preexec_fn is in general considered harmful.

[benjaminp]

Okay, this seems like a bad idea.

[dhduvall]

Our project (the Solaris packaging system, IPS), relies on posix_spawn() primarily for the ability to fork without making a large memory reservation (and possibly failing) because the forking process was itself very large. That's the (a?) bug benefit of posix_spawn() -- it's not a benefit for the programmer using it (who might have to fall back to fork/exec), but for the end-user that benefits from its streamlined operation.

You're right that it doesn't handle everything that subprocess.Popen() does -- though at least on Solaris there's a way to change the cwd in the file actions, and I'm sure we'd consider adding a way to do the setsid() as well. The rest should be possible cross-platform.

[alex]

Danek, you might find https://github.com/dreid/posix_spawn/ useful, it provides bindings and a public API over posix_spawn (it's not complete yet, but if there's stuff missing, feel free to file a ticket!)

[dhduvall]

Cool. We implemented our own version as a straight-up native module (https://java.net/projects/ips/sources/pkg-gate/content/src/modules/pspawn.c), and our Popen replacement is not at present a complete replacement for the one in the stdlib, but it does what we need it to do. We'd absolutely switch if it came in to the stdlib, though, and I think there would be plenty of programs that would benefit from it (certainly a number of large Python programs in Solaris have run into exactly this problem).

[dhduvall]

Oh, for what it's worth, Solaris added setsid support to posix_spawn a few years ago, as a result of this conversation. I still think it would be worthwhile supporting this in the stdlib, since we keep running into processes which have a lot of memory reserved and can't fork some small program because they're running in a memory-limited environment.

[JohnJones]

To prevent subprocess/os.fork() doubling my memory after loading a large numpy array into memory, I now have to start my script with 650 calls to subprocess.Popen(), which just sit their waiting for some stdin to start doing something. This doesn't happen until after the numpy array is loaded, else I quickly run out of memory.

I think this sort of situation results in more unnecessary complexity compared to using posix_spawn, in spite of the concerns about using posix_spawn. Perhaps subprocess.Popen just needs a "posix_spawn=True" parameter?

[gpshead]

I think someone wanting this will need to put forward a patch adding it to be reviewed and mulled over. As Alex mentioned in msg22571 - https://github.com/dreid/posix_spawn/ exists as does the code Danek pointed at in the next comment. try those.

I suggest someone who actively cares about a limited available process address space environment contribute this. (ie: not your typical 64-bit system)

fork()+exec() does not cause significant memory allocation, only a brief ~doubling of mapped address space, with backing pages being the originals just marked copy on write, but never written to by the child. The exec undoes that mapping.

It is technically possible to cause the copy on writes to happen if you immediately write to a large amount of memory in the parent process after the fork has happened before the exec has, but that seems like a rare timing problem that could even be worked around by monitoring the forked child to see that the exec has occurred before continuing.

[JohnJones]

I agree with everything you're saying Gregory, however I don't think the significance of the memory doubling is as inconsequential as you might first think. For example, i have on my 64bit Linux system 128Gb of RAM, and a numpy table that's around 70Gb. Spawning a subprocess, even though memory is doubled for a very short period of time, is enough to raise a MemoryError, despite the subprocess i'm spawning using only 2 or 3Mb after the exec().

I do appreciate that for most Python users however, they will not see much benefit from what I imagine is quite a lot of development work.

FWIW, I did try the posix_spawn module, but i couldn't figure out how to write data to the stdin of a posix_spawn subprocess, and gave up in place of the commonly recommended solution to this problem (via StackExchange) of spawning lots of subprocesses before you put stuff in memory. Fortunately, for my problem, this was a possible solution. For others I think they're going to have to use posix_spawn, or an entirely different programming language if that doesn't work.

[gpshead]

All I'm really saying is that someone who wants this should provide a
patch/PR with unittests. :) I can help review and go from there.

It does make sense to me for it to be available as part of the subprocess
API if it is available at all, likely an alternative implementation of or
behavior flag to _posixsubprocess.fork_exec() with appropriate autoconf and
conditional compilation based on availability ifdefs.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:49 AM John Jones <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

John Jones added the comment:

I agree with everything you're saying Gregory, however I don't think the
significance of the memory doubling is as inconsequential as you might
first think. For example, i have on my 64bit Linux system 128Gb of RAM, and
a numpy table that's around 70Gb. Spawning a subprocess, even though memory
is doubled for a very short period of time, is enough to raise a
MemoryError, despite the subprocess i'm spawning using only 2 or 3Mb after
the exec().

I do appreciate that for most Python users however, they will not see much
benefit from what I imagine is quite a lot of development work.

FWIW, I did try the posix_spawn module, but i couldn't figure out how to
write data to the stdin of a posix_spawn subprocess, and gave up in place
of the commonly recommended solution to this problem (via StackExchange) of
spawning lots of subprocesses before you put stuff in memory. Fortunately,
for my problem, this was a possible solution. For others I think they're
going to have to use posix_spawn, or an entirely different programming
language if that doesn't work.

----------

---

Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20104\>

---

[gpshead]

New changeset 6c6ddf9 by Gregory P. Smith (Pablo Galindo) in branch 'master':
bpo-20104: Expose posix_spawn in the os module (GH-5109)
6c6ddf9

[gpshead]

remaining work before closing this:
Doc/library/os.rst needs to describe os.posix_spawn

[vadmium]

Pablo’s code looked unfinished to me. As well as missing documentation, I suspect there may be memory leaks and poor error handling.

The two calls above the “fail:” label look like dead code. The “parse_envlist” result appears to be leaked.

I’m curious why you never call “posix_spawn_file_actions_destroy”. I saw on Open BSD <https://man.openbsd.org/posix_spawn_file_actions_init.3\> it reclaims memory, and it seems sensible to call it on other platforms as well.

No error checking on any of the “posix_spawn_file_actions_” methods.

If “posix_spawn” fails, the “pid” variable will be returned uninitialized.

[pablogsal]

I have opened a PR to address this issues:

#5415

[vadmium]

Does the PySequence_Fast result need releasing if the following “for” loop fails? There is a Py_DECREF only in the successful case, which seems inconsistent.

Does Python still support non-UTF-8 locales and bytes filenames? I haven’t been keeping up, but I assumed these things were still supported in many cases. It seems strange to only support UTF-8 in the “addopen” file action.

Pablo’s second PR currently <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/5418/commits/e50bdb9\> calls PyErr_SetString(PyExc_OSError, . . .) with a custom error message depending on which OS call failed. But I wonder if it is more important to set the “errno” attribute (which I think should choose an OSError subclass if appropriate). Perhaps you can do that by assigning the return values to “errno” and then calling PyErr_SetFromErrno. A disadvantage might be less context about which stage went wrong.

[vadmium]

TypeError if “posix_spawn_file_actions_init” fails doesn’t seem right. I suggest OSError, MemoryError, or even plain Exception instead.

“File_actionsp” is set to point to a local variable “_file_actions”, but the variable goes out of scope before the pointer is used. This is technically undefined behaviour (even if it happens to work). Simplest solution would be to move the variables into the same outer scope.

[pablogsal]

Regarding the leak, I was under the assumption that as File_actionsp is pointing to a stack initialized _file_actions and is this last variable the one that is passed to posix_spawn_file_actions_init, it was not needed to explicitly call posix_spawn_file_actions_destroy as the variable will go out of scope and the pointer is pointing to a stack variable. Am I missing something?

[vadmium]

Your assumption about calling “file_actions_destroy” would be okay if the posix_spawn_file_actions_t object was a simple object or structure. But I imagine most implementations would allocate memory when you call one of the “add” methods. Especially “addopen”, which is supposed to copy the filename string somewhere. Looking at “uclibc” <https://repo.or.cz/uclibc-ng.git/blob/v1.0.28:/include/spawn.h#l263\>, I see it calls “free”, because it allocates an array for all the file actions.

[vstinner]

Python master doesn't build on macOS Tiger anymore:

http://buildbot.python.org/all/#/builders/30/builds/581

./Modules/posixmodule.c:251:19: error: spawn.h: No such file or directory
./Modules/posixmodule.c: In function ‘os_posix_spawn_impl’:
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5174: error: ‘posix_spawn_file_actions_t’ undeclared (first use in this function)
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5174: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5174: error: for each function it appears in.)
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5174: error: ‘file_actionsp’ undeclared (first use in this function)
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5176: error: parse error before ‘_file_actions’
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5177: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘posix_spawn_file_actions_init’
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5177: error: ‘_file_actions’ undeclared (first use in this function)
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5232: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen’
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5245: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘posix_spawn_file_actions_addclose’
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5262: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘posix_spawn_file_actions_adddup2’
./Modules/posixmodule.c:5274: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘posix_spawn’
make: *** [Modules/posixmodule.o] Error 1

See also bpo-32705: "Current Android does not have posix_spawn" (now fixed). In PR 5413 of this bpo, it was also asked if "#define HAVE_POSIX_SPAWN 1" of posixmodule.c makes sence since there is already a configure check for posix_spawn()?

#5413 (comment)

[pablogsal]

@vstinner I have removed the #define HAVE_POSIX_SPAWN 1 in PR 5418.

[vstinner]

FYI bolen-dmg-3.x was also broken by this change:

http://buildbot.python.org/all/#/builders/69/builds/114

[vadmium]

I suggested the “scheduler” tuple to bring the two related parameters (scheduling policy and sched_param) together, similar to how they are paired as the second and third parameters to “os.sched_setscheduler”, and because I thought it would imply that a scheduling policy without sched_param is not valid.

But separate keyword parameters would also work if you prefer. I might call them “schedpolicy” and “schedparam”, but if you prefer the naming scheme in the current proposal, you could call them “setscheduler” and “setschedparam”. Although in that case, setting the “setscheduler” parameter on its own would not be sufficient to correctly set the POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDULER flag.

[pablogsal]

I think that is the biggest argument towards using a tuple: that just setting the priority is not enough (and also is decontextualized as different policies have different priorities). On the other hand one could say that the API is a low level API and therefore the user should be aware of such a problem. Also, using a tuple makes the API a bit asymmetric as Serhiy mention but I think this can compensate for the conceptual map the will be established (as in each priority is associated with a policy) if the tuple API is used.

[serhiy-storchaka]

As for the scheduler interface, yet one option is using two mutually exclusive parameters setschedparam and setscheduler. The first take a sched_param, the second takes a pair: int and sched_param. This will not simplify the implementation, but they directly correspond to functions os.sched_setparam() and os.sched_setscheduler(). I don't say that this interface is better than alternatives, I just mention yet one option.

posix_spawn() can be easily implemented via fork()/exec(). See the reference implementation: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/xrat/xsh_chap03.html . It can be directly translated to Python. Seems the only value of posix_spawn() is on systems that don't provide fork()/exec(), but provide posix_spawn(). Is posix_spawn() supported on Windows? What are other systems supported by Python that don't provide fork()/exec()?

I'm for removing os.posix_spawn() in 3.7. Even if we will accept the current interface and merge PR 6693 we can find other problems with the interface or the implementation. And os.posix_spawnp() still is not implemented. It is just too dangerous to add such complex feature between the last beta and RC.

[pablogsal]

Notice that #6794 is already open to remove posix_spawn from 3.7.

[gpshead]

Pablo, Victor, Ned and I synced up at the pycon2018 sprints. We're removing posix_spawn from 3.7 (#6794) while the API is worked on.

[gpshead]

New changeset 8e633a4 by Gregory P. Smith (Pablo Galindo) in branch '3.7':
bpo-20104: Remove posix_spawn from 3.7 (GH-6794)
8e633a4

[pablogsal]

Some interesting benchmarks of posix spawn:

https://github.com/rtomayko/posix-spawn/blob/master/README.md

[pablogsal]

Also this reading may be relevant/interesting:

https://about.gitlab.com/2018/01/23/how-a-fix-in-go-19-sped-up-our-gitaly-service-by-30x/

[vstinner]

posix_spawn can still be found in Python 3.7:

configure:11243: posix_fallocate posix_fadvise posix_spawn pread preadv preadv2 \
configure.ac:3470: posix_fallocate posix_fadvise posix_spawn pread preadv preadv2 \
pyconfig.h.in:710:/* Define to 1 if you have the `posix_spawn' function. */

This check has been added by the commit 6c6ddf9 and should be removed from Python 3.7 as well, no? It's not a release blocker, but it may be good to remove posix_spawn from configure.ac (and related generated files).

[pablogsal]

I originally removed it from the configure script in PR6794 but it was reintroduced in commit 5700952. Check the PR for Greg's rationale.

[vstinner]

I originally removed it from the configure script in PR6794 but it was reintroduced in commit 5700952. Check the PR for Greg's rationale.

Oh ok.

[vstinner]

Tests fail on PPC64 Fedora 3.x: bpo-33630.

[serhiy-storchaka]

Benjamin, Gregory, could you please look at PR 6693? Is it what you want?

[pablogsal]

New changeset 254a466 by Pablo Galindo in branch 'master':
bpo-20104: Add flag capabilities to posix_spawn (GH-6693)
254a466

[serhiy-storchaka]

New changeset d700f97 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'master':
bpo-20104: Change the file_actions parameter of os.posix_spawn(). (GH-6725)
d700f97

[serhiy-storchaka]

Thank you for your contribution Pablo. This issue have appeared much more complex and less obvious than it looked initially.

[vstinner]

Thank you for your contribution Pablo. This issue have appeared much more
complex and less obvious than it looked initially.

Yeah, thanks Pablo for your tenacy! This function is interesting in term of
performance and correctness ("atomic" function, signal safe?).

[vstinner]

I close the issue, it's now done.

If someone wants to experiment in posix_spawn() in subprocess, please open a new issue.

[vstinner]

Serhiy:

And os.posix_spawnp() still is not implemented.

I created bpo-35674 to see how to expose this feature.