mirror of
https://github.com/python/cpython.git
synced 2024-12-11 18:53:56 +08:00
ead8b7ab30
In cyclic gc, clear weakrefs to unreachable objects before allowing any Python code (weakref callbacks or __del__ methods) to run. This is a critical bugfix, affecting all versions of Python since weakrefs were introduced. I'll backport to 2.3.
220 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
220 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
Intro
|
|
=====
|
|
|
|
The basic rule for dealing with weakref callbacks (and __del__ methods too,
|
|
for that matter) during cyclic gc:
|
|
|
|
Once gc has computed the set of unreachable objects, no Python-level
|
|
code can be allowed to access an unreachable object.
|
|
|
|
If that can happen, then the Python code can resurrect unreachable objects
|
|
too, and gc can't detect that without starting over. Since gc eventually
|
|
runs tp_clear on all unreachable objects, if an unreachable object is
|
|
resurrected then tp_clear will eventually be called on it (or may already
|
|
have been called before resurrection). At best (and this has been an
|
|
historically common bug), tp_clear empties an instance's __dict__, and
|
|
"impossible" AttributeErrors result. At worst, tp_clear leaves behind an
|
|
insane object at the C level, and segfaults result (historically, most
|
|
often by setting a new-style class's mro pointer to NULL, after which
|
|
attribute lookups performed by the class can segfault).
|
|
|
|
OTOH, it's OK to run Python-level code that can't access unreachable
|
|
objects, and sometimes that's necessary. The chief example is the callback
|
|
attached to a reachable weakref W to an unreachable object O. Since O is
|
|
going away, and W is still alive, the callback must be invoked. Because W
|
|
is still alive, everything reachable from its callback is also reachable,
|
|
so it's also safe to invoke the callback (although that's trickier than it
|
|
sounds, since other reachable weakrefs to other unreachable objects may
|
|
still exist, and be accessible to the callback -- there are lots of painful
|
|
details like this covered in the rest of this file).
|
|
|
|
Python 2.4/2.3.5
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
The "Before 2.3.3" section below turned out to be wrong in some ways, but
|
|
I'm leaving it as-is because it's more right than wrong, and serves as a
|
|
wonderful example of how painful analysis can miss not only the forest for
|
|
the trees, but also miss the trees for the aphids sucking the trees
|
|
dry <wink>.
|
|
|
|
The primary thing it missed is that when a weakref to a piece of cyclic
|
|
trash (CT) exists, then any call to any Python code whatsoever can end up
|
|
materializing a strong reference to that weakref's CT referent, and so
|
|
possibly resurrect an insane object (one for which cyclic gc has called-- or
|
|
will call before it's done --tp_clear()). It's not even necessarily that a
|
|
weakref callback or __del__ method does something nasty on purpose: as
|
|
soon as we execute Python code, threads other than the gc thread can run
|
|
too, and they can do ordinary things with weakrefs that end up resurrecting
|
|
CT while gc is running.
|
|
|
|
http://www.python.org/sf/1055820
|
|
|
|
shows how innocent it can be, and also how nasty. Variants of the three
|
|
focussed test cases attached to that bug report are now part of Python's
|
|
standard Lib/test/test_gc.py.
|
|
|
|
Jim Fulton gave the best nutshell summary of the new (in 2.4 and 2.3.5)
|
|
approach:
|
|
|
|
Clearing cyclic trash can call Python code. If there are weakrefs to
|
|
any of the cyclic trash, then those weakrefs can be used to resurrect
|
|
the objects. Therefore, *before* clearing cyclic trash, we need to
|
|
remove any weakrefs. If any of the weakrefs being removed have
|
|
callbacks, then we need to save the callbacks and call them *after* all
|
|
of the weakrefs have been cleared.
|
|
|
|
Alas, doing just that much doesn't work, because it overlooks what turned
|
|
out to be the much subtler problems that were fixed earlier, and described
|
|
below. We do clear all weakrefs to CT now before breaking cycles, but not
|
|
all callbacks encountered can be run later. That's explained in horrid
|
|
detail below.
|
|
|
|
Older text follows, with a some later comments in [] brackets:
|
|
|
|
Before 2.3.3
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
Before 2.3.3, Python's cyclic gc didn't pay any attention to weakrefs.
|
|
Segfaults in Zope3 resulted.
|
|
|
|
weakrefs in Python are designed to, at worst, let *other* objects learn
|
|
that a given object has died, via a callback function. The weakly
|
|
referenced object itself is not passed to the callback, and the presumption
|
|
is that the weakly referenced object is unreachable trash at the time the
|
|
callback is invoked.
|
|
|
|
That's usually true, but not always. Suppose a weakly referenced object
|
|
becomes part of a clump of cyclic trash. When enough cycles are broken by
|
|
cyclic gc that the object is reclaimed, the callback is invoked. If it's
|
|
possible for the callback to get at objects in the cycle(s), then it may be
|
|
possible for those objects to access (via strong references in the cycle)
|
|
the weakly referenced object being torn down, or other objects in the cycle
|
|
that have already suffered a tp_clear() call. There's no guarantee that an
|
|
object is in a sane state after tp_clear(). Bad things (including
|
|
segfaults) can happen right then, during the callback's execution, or can
|
|
happen at any later time if the callback manages to resurrect an insane
|
|
object.
|
|
|
|
[That missed that, in addition, a weakref to CT can exist outside CT, and
|
|
any callback into Python can use such a non-CT weakref to resurrect its CT
|
|
referent. The same bad kinds of things can happen then.]
|
|
|
|
Note that if it's possible for the callback to get at objects in the trash
|
|
cycles, it must also be the case that the callback itself is part of the
|
|
trash cycles. Else the callback would have acted as an external root to
|
|
the current collection, and nothing reachable from it would be in cyclic
|
|
trash either.
|
|
|
|
[Except that a non-CT callback can also use a non-CT weakref to get at
|
|
CT objects.]
|
|
|
|
More, if the callback itself is in cyclic trash, then the weakref to which
|
|
the callback is attached must also be trash, and for the same kind of
|
|
reason: if the weakref acted as an external root, then the callback could
|
|
not have been cyclic trash.
|
|
|
|
So a problem here requires that a weakref, that weakref's callback, and the
|
|
weakly referenced object, all be in cyclic trash at the same time. This
|
|
isn't easy to stumble into by accident while Python is running, and, indeed,
|
|
it took quite a while to dream up failing test cases. Zope3 saw segfaults
|
|
during shutdown, during the second call of gc in Py_Finalize, after most
|
|
modules had been torn down. That creates many trash cycles (esp. those
|
|
involving new-style classes), making the problem much more likely. Once you
|
|
know what's required to provoke the problem, though, it's easy to create
|
|
tests that segfault before shutdown.
|
|
|
|
In 2.3.3, before breaking cycles, we first clear all the weakrefs with
|
|
callbacks in cyclic trash. Since the weakrefs *are* trash, and there's no
|
|
defined-- or even predictable --order in which tp_clear() gets called on
|
|
cyclic trash, it's defensible to first clear weakrefs with callbacks. It's
|
|
a feature of Python's weakrefs too that when a weakref goes away, the
|
|
callback (if any) associated with it is thrown away too, unexecuted.
|
|
|
|
[In 2.4/2.3.5, we first clear all weakrefs to CT objects, whether or not
|
|
those weakrefs are themselves CT, and whether or not they have callbacks.
|
|
The callbacks (if any) on non-CT weakrefs (if any) are invoked later,
|
|
after all weakrefs-to-CT have been cleared. The callbacks (if any) on CT
|
|
weakrefs (if any) are never invoked, for the excruciating reasons
|
|
explained here.]
|
|
|
|
Just that much is almost enough to prevent problems, by throwing away
|
|
*almost* all the weakref callbacks that could get triggered by gc. The
|
|
problem remaining is that clearing a weakref with a callback decrefs the
|
|
callback object, and the callback object may *itself* be weakly referenced,
|
|
via another weakref with another callback. So the process of clearing
|
|
weakrefs can trigger callbacks attached to other weakrefs, and those
|
|
latter weakrefs may or may not be part of cyclic trash.
|
|
|
|
So, to prevent any Python code from running while gc is invoking tp_clear()
|
|
on all the objects in cyclic trash,
|
|
|
|
[That was always wrong: we can't stop Python code from running when gc
|
|
is breaking cycles. If an object with a __del__ method is not itself in
|
|
a cycle, but is reachable only from CT, then breaking cycles will, as a
|
|
matter of course, drop the refcount on that object to 0, and its __del__
|
|
will run right then. What we can and must stop is running any Python
|
|
code that could access CT.]
|
|
it's not quite enough just to invoke
|
|
tp_clear() on weakrefs with callbacks first. Instead the weakref module
|
|
grew a new private function (_PyWeakref_ClearRef) that does only part of
|
|
tp_clear(): it removes the weakref from the weakly-referenced object's list
|
|
of weakrefs, but does not decref the callback object. So calling
|
|
_PyWeakref_ClearRef(wr) ensures that wr's callback object will never
|
|
trigger, and (unlike weakref's tp_clear()) also prevents any callback
|
|
associated *with* wr's callback object from triggering.
|
|
|
|
[Although we may trigger such callbacks later, as explained below.]
|
|
|
|
Then we can call tp_clear on all the cyclic objects and never trigger
|
|
Python code.
|
|
|
|
[As above, not so: it means never trigger Python code that can access CT.]
|
|
|
|
After we do that, the callback objects still need to be decref'ed. Callbacks
|
|
(if any) *on* the callback objects that were also part of cyclic trash won't
|
|
get invoked, because we cleared all trash weakrefs with callbacks at the
|
|
start. Callbacks on the callback objects that were not part of cyclic trash
|
|
acted as external roots to everything reachable from them, so nothing
|
|
reachable from them was part of cyclic trash, so gc didn't do any damage to
|
|
objects reachable from them, and it's safe to call them at the end of gc.
|
|
|
|
[That's so. In addition, now we also invoke (if any) the callbacks on
|
|
non-CT weakrefs to CT objects, during the same pass that decrefs the
|
|
callback objects.]
|
|
|
|
An alternative would have been to treat objects with callbacks like objects
|
|
with __del__ methods, refusing to collect them, appending them to gc.garbage
|
|
instead. That would have been much easier. Jim Fulton gave a strong
|
|
argument against that (on Python-Dev):
|
|
|
|
There's a big difference between __del__ and weakref callbacks.
|
|
The __del__ method is "internal" to a design. When you design a
|
|
class with a del method, you know you have to avoid including the
|
|
class in cycles.
|
|
|
|
Now, suppose you have a design that makes has no __del__ methods but
|
|
that does use cyclic data structures. You reason about the design,
|
|
run tests, and convince yourself you don't have a leak.
|
|
|
|
Now, suppose some external code creates a weakref to one of your
|
|
objects. All of a sudden, you start leaking. You can look at your
|
|
code all you want and you won't find a reason for the leak.
|
|
|
|
IOW, a class designer can out-think __del__ problems, but has no control
|
|
over who creates weakrefs to his classes or class instances. The class
|
|
user has little chance either of predicting when the weakrefs he creates
|
|
may end up in cycles.
|
|
|
|
Callbacks on weakref callbacks are executed in an arbitrary order, and
|
|
that's not good (a primary reason not to collect cycles with objects with
|
|
__del__ methods is to avoid running finalizers in an arbitrary order).
|
|
However, a weakref callback on a weakref callback has got to be rare.
|
|
It's possible to do such a thing, so gc has to be robust against it, but
|
|
I doubt anyone has done it outside the test case I wrote for it.
|
|
|
|
[The callbacks (if any) on non-CT weakrefs to CT objects are also executed
|
|
in an arbitrary order now. But they were before too, depending on the
|
|
vagaries of when tp_clear() happened to break enough cycles to trigger
|
|
them. People simply shouldn't try to use __del__ or weakref callbacks to
|
|
do fancy stuff.]
|