Resuming a 'yield from' stack is broken if a signal arrives in the middle

[njsmith]

BPO	30039
Nosy	@vstinner, @njsmith, @1st1
PRs	bpo-30039: Don't run signal handlers while resuming a yield from stack #1081 [3.6] bpo-30039: Don't run signal handlers while resuming a yield fro… #1640

^{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/1st1'
closed_at = <Date 2017-06-09.21:07:32.657>
created_at = <Date 2017-04-11.09:33:27.080>
labels = ['interpreter-core', 'type-bug', '3.7']
title = "Resuming a 'yield from' stack is broken if a signal arrives in the middle"
updated_at = <Date 2017-06-10.08:52:13.435>
user = 'https://github.com/njsmith'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2017-06-10.08:52:13.435>
actor = 'vstinner'
assignee = 'yselivanov'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2017-06-09.21:07:32.657>
closer = 'yselivanov'
components = ['Interpreter Core']
creation = <Date 2017-04-11.09:33:27.080>
creator = 'njs'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 30039
keywords = []
message_count = 8.0
messages = ['291469', '293887', '293902', '293903', '295578', '295579', '295580', '295620']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['vstinner', 'njs', 'yselivanov']
pr_nums = ['1081', '1640']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue30039'
versions = ['Python 3.5', 'Python 3.6', 'Python 3.7']

[njsmith]

If we have a chain of generators/coroutines that are 'yield from'ing each other, then resuming the stack works like:

• call send() on the outermost generator
• this enters _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, which re-executes the YIELD_FROM opcode
• which calls send() on the next generator
• which enters _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, which re-executes the YIELD_FROM opcode
• ...etc.

However, every time we enter _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault, the first thing we do is to check for pending signals, and if there are any then we run the signal handler. And if it raises an exception, then we immediately propagate that exception *instead* of starting to execute bytecode. This means that e.g. a SIGINT at the wrong moment can "break the chain" – it can be raised in the middle of our yield from chain, with the bottom part of the stack abandoned for the garbage collector.

The fix is pretty simple: there's already a special case in _PyEval_EvalFrameEx where it skips running signal handlers if the next opcode is SETUP_FINALLY. (I don't see how this accomplishes anything useful, but that's another story.) If we extend this check to also skip running signal handlers when the next opcode is YIELD_FROM, then that closes the hole – now the exception can only be raised at the innermost stack frame.

This shouldn't have any performance implications, because the opcode check happens inside the "slow path" after we've already determined that there's a pending signal or something similar for us to process; the vast majority of the time this isn't true.

I'll post a PR in a few minutes that has a test case that demonstrates the problem and fails on current master, plus the fix.

[1st1]

New changeset ab4413a by Yury Selivanov (Nathaniel J. Smith) in branch 'master':
bpo-30039: Don't run signal handlers while resuming a yield from stack (bpo-1081)
ab4413a

[vstinner]

The change should be backported to 3.5 and 3.6, right? The change seems very short and safe. IMHO it's ok to backport.

[1st1]

Yes, I'll do the backport.

[1st1]

New changeset e89f95b by Yury Selivanov in branch '3.6':
[3.6] bpo-30039: Don't run signal handlers while resuming a yield from stack (GH-1081) (bpo-1640)
e89f95b

[vstinner]

Why not backporting the fix to 3.5 as well?

[1st1]

I don't think we need to. Isn't 3.5 is in security/important bug fix mode? I don't view this change as an important one (it's just a nice thing to have).

[vstinner]

Yury Selivanov added the comment:

I don't think we need to. Isn't 3.5 is in security/important bug fix mode? I don't view this change as an important one (it's just a nice thing to have).

Not yet, it still accept bug fixes:
https://docs.python.org/devguide/#status-of-python-branches