python / python/cpython

Inconsistent `Popen.communicate()` behavior if stdin/stdout/stderr is closed `PIPE`

未關閉
#131,064 2 則留言 0 個 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 檢視

還沒有人認領這個 Issue。

stdlib type-bug
主要語言
Python
星號
77.2k
分支
36k
PR 合併指標
PR 指標待擷取

描述

Bug report

Bug description:

The behavior with Popen.communicate() if stdin/stdout/stderr are PIPEs and they are closed before calling communicate() is rather strange.

If both stdout and stderr are PIPEs and one (or both) is closed, communicate() succeeds. If only one of them is a PIPE and it is closed, the behavior changes and there's a ValueError instead:

>>> from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
>>>
>>> p = Popen(['python', '-V'], stdout=PIPE, stderr=PIPE)
>>> p.stdout.close()
>>> p.communicate()
(b'', b'')
>>>
>>> p = Popen(['python', '-V'], stdout=PIPE)
>>> p.stdout.close()
>>> p.communicate()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<python-input-7>", line 1, in <module>
    p.communicate()
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/subprocess.py", line 1207, in communicate
    stdout = self.stdout.read()
ValueError: read of closed file

If stdin is a closed PIPE, the behavior is pretty much the opposite of the above. If other streams are not PIPEs, communicate() succeeds, but if the are other PIPEs, we get a ValueError:

>>> from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
>>>
>>> p = Popen(['python', '-c', 'pass'], stdin=PIPE)
>>> p.stdin.close()
>>> p.communicate()
(None, None)
>>> 
>>> p = Popen(['python', '-c', 'pass'], stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE)
>>> p.stdin.close()
>>> p.communicate()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<python-input-14>", line 1, in <module>
    p.communicate()
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/subprocess.py", line 1220, in communicate
    stdout, stderr = self._communicate(input, endtime, timeout)
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/subprocess.py", line 2081, in _communicate
    self.stdin.flush()
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^
ValueError: flush of closed file

This inconsistency seems to be caused by an optimization that leads to two different code paths depending on the number of PIPEs. I needed to spend some time to understand why our tests behaved seemingly inconsistently after code was refactored.

It would be easy to fix problems by changing code like if self.stdout: to if self.stdout and not self.stdout.closed:. I guess it could be argued that raising a ValueError is the correct way to handle these situations, but in that case it should be raised always.

Tested with Python 3.14 alpha 5. Occurs also with earlier ones.

CPython versions tested on:

3.14

Operating systems tested on:

Linux

貢獻指南

開啟貢獻指南

從這裡開始

  1. 先讀完整個 Issue,再讀專案的貢獻指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言說明你要接手 —— 這能避免兩個人做同樣的事。
  3. Fork 儲存庫,在一個分支上完成修改。
  4. 送出 Pull Request,並在描述裡引用這個 Issue 編號。

研究方向

先重現 closed-PIPE 範例,然後檢查 Lib/subprocess.py 中第 1194 行附近與 communicate() 最佳化相關的部分,以及 traceback 中顯示的 stdin/stdout 處理。決定並確認對已關閉串流的預期一致行為,接著為受影響的組合新增回歸測試涵蓋,並驗證現有的 subprocess 測試。

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。

評估

技術堆疊
python
領域
operating-systems
Issue 類型
缺陷
難度
3/5
預估耗時
1-2 天
活躍度
停滯
描述清晰度
基本清楚
新手友好度
42/100

把新 issue 寄到你的電子郵件信箱

精選適合新手參與的 GitHub issue 摘要。