- 
          
- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 33.3k
gh-129185: Fix PyTraceMalloc_Untrack() at Python exit #129191
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
          
     Merged
      
      
    
  
     Merged
                    Changes from all commits
      Commits
    
    
            Show all changes
          
          
            6 commits
          
        
        Select commit
          Hold shift + click to select a range
      
      a1ea2fe
              
                gh-129185: Fix PyTraceMalloc_Untrack() at Python exit
              
              
                vstinner 4172b91
              
                Test also PyTraceMalloc_Untrack() without the GIL
              
              
                vstinner f3ec095
              
                Call _PyTraceMalloc_Fini() after finalize_interp_clear()
              
              
                vstinner d510567
              
                PyTraceMalloc_Track() checks tracing with the GIL
              
              
                vstinner 31bfe5b
              
                Test also Untrack in test_tracemalloc_track_race()
              
              
                vstinner 555c70d
              
                Get the GIL in Untrack
              
              
                vstinner File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
          Failed to load comments.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Jump to
        
          Jump to file
        
      
      
          Failed to load files.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
      
      Oops, something went wrong.
        
    
  
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
  Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
  You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
  Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
  This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
  Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
  Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
  Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
  
    
  
    
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need to hold the lock or GIL, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The purpose of this "pre-check" is to avoid the GIL and TABLES_LOCK().
The flag is tested again below with TABLES_LOCK().
PyTraceMalloc_Untrack() doesn't lock the GIL, only TABLES_LOCK(), when tracing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change restores the check that we had before recent refactoring. For example, Python 3.14 alpha3 uses:
The check is done without holding the GIL.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But then we lose the thread safety: if one thread that holds the GIL were to write to
tracing, then a thread that calls one of these without the GIL would race.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the easiest solution would be to grab the tables lock for the read, and then unlock it before calling
PyGILState_Ensureto prevent lock-ordering deadlocks.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the problem of "continue execution" of thread A, since thread A checks again
tracingwith the tables lock?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because it might not reach the second
tracingread at all--if the first one races, then we're probably going to get a crash.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, you're talking about thread B calling
_PyTraceMalloc_Fini(), nottracemalloc.stop(). In this case, thread A can callTABLES_LOCK()after thread B deleted the lock, and yes, we can get a crash.Sadly, PyTraceMalloc_Track() and PyTraceMalloc_Untrack() API doesn't require the caller to hold the GIL.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That can happen too, but I meant that we'll get a crash from the data race on
tracing, not a use-after-free on the lock. I think we just hold the GIL (viaPyGILState_Ensure) and call without the tables lock held, that should be thread safe enough for 3.12.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I modified the Untrack() function to get the GIL. It should address your last concern.