Race between UserDict.__getitem__ and __delitem__ can result in __missing_ not being called when item is missing.
還沒有人認領這個 Issue。
- 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
I believe there is a race if __getitem__ sees the key exists in self.data and the GIL is released before getting the item. If another thread then calls __delitem__ which removes the item from self.data, when __getitem__ resumes it will attempt to get and return the item which no longer exists resulting in KeyError being raised out of __getitem__. If the class has __missing__ defined it should be called if the item is missing, but that won't occur in this sequence of events.
This is a theoretical bug report based solely on code inspection prompted by a DPO discussion about a different race the GIL does protect against (https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-805-safe-parallel-python/108670/49).
The only concern is that __missing__ will not be called, not that the item is initially seen then not seen.
I have not done a thorough review yet of the rest of the UserDict methods that do a containment check followed by lookup, but my cursory inspection they look to delegate to __getitem__. I am a bit concerned that get() does not call __missing__ if the initial check does not see the item but will if it sees the item and this bug is fixed as proposed below will result in __missing__ being called. This should be consistent.
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17910 seems related and I will look into the details of that fix to ensure this fix is consistent (if I end up working on this issue).
I offer a strawman proposal for fixing this by changing __getitem__ to use a single inspection of self.data with something like:
item = self.data.get(key, MISSING) if item is not MISSING: return item ...
Where MISSING is an internal object guaranteed to not be a key in self.data (adding it if something suitable doesn't already exist).
I volunteer to work on this issue. To point me in the right direction are there existing tests (either in collections or elsewhere) that force GIL timing races I can look at as an example of how to write a test to verify this issue is fixed? The challenge is reliably interleaving the initial containment check, then __delitem__, then the subscript access. I'm not sure if this level of testing is feasible based on previous experience with similar issues...the fix usually invalidates the test steps to interleave things properly by removing the ability for them to be interleaved. Any guidance on this would be very appreciated if my offer to work on this is taken up.
Linked PRs
- gh-156621
- gh-157287
貢獻指南
從這裡開始
- 先讀完整個 Issue,再讀專案的貢獻指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言說明你要接手 —— 這能避免兩個人做同樣的事。
- Fork 儲存庫,在一個分支上完成修改。
- 送出 Pull Request,並在描述裡引用這個 Issue 編號。
研究方向
從 Lib/collections/init.py 約第 1189 行開始,檢查報告中描述的 UserDict 查找與刪除行為。查看關聯的 PR gh-156621 和 gh-157287,了解目前的方向,然後檢查現有的 collections 測試是否涵蓋 missing 和相關的交錯行為。完成的標準是:報告的缺失項目行為已與 get() 保持一致地解決,並由適當的測試涵蓋。
由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。
評估
- 技術堆疊
- python
- 領域
- backend
- Issue 類型
- 缺陷
- 難度
- 4/5
- 預估耗時
- 3-5 天
- 活躍度
- 停滯
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 新手友好度
- 35/100