classification
Title: PyTypeObject's tp_base initialization bug
Type: behavior Stage: patch review
Components: Interpreter Core Versions: Python 3.8
process
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: benjamin.peterson, eelizondo, eric.snow, ronaldoussoren, twouters, vstinner
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2018-08-27 20:25 by eelizondo, last changed 2019-01-07 15:47 by vstinner.

Pull Requests
URL Status Linked Edit
PR 8957 open eelizondo, 2018-08-27 20:27
Messages (8)
msg324195 - (view) Author: Eddie Elizondo (eelizondo) * Date: 2018-08-27 20:25
From the documentation, it says that PyType_Ready should be called on `ALL` type objects to finish their initialization (https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/type.html#c.PyType_Ready). This means that a PyTypeObject's ob_type should always be set by PyType_Ready.

It turns out that this is not actually followed by all the core types in CPython. This leads to the usage of types that were not initialized through PyType_Ready.

This fix modifies PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT to default the type to NULL so that all objects have to be fully initialized through PyType_Ready.

Plus:
* It initializes all the objects that were not being initialized through PyType_Ready.
* Modifies PyType_Ready to special case the ob_type initialization of PyType_Type and PyBaseObject_Type.
* It modifies the edge case of _Py_FalseStruct and _Py_TrueStruct.

Read more: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-August/154946.html
msg324279 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-08-28 19:29
I don't agree with "This means that a PyTypeObject's ob_type should always be set by PyType_Ready.", and therefore don't agree with the change to PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT.

In particular this is not correct when the type has a custom metatype (e.g. ob_type != &PyType_Type). 

BTW. I don't understand why changing the invocation of PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT is needed at all.  Adding calls to PyType_Ready can be don without that change (and I agree with explicitly initialising all types).
msg324280 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-08-28 19:30
(added "object model" reviewers to the nosy list)
msg324283 - (view) Author: Eddie Elizondo (eelizondo) * Date: 2018-08-28 19:59
@ronaldoussoren Please read the complete analysis from the mailing list: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-August/154946.html. The description here was just a rehash and I probably missed some context. 

Particularly, when I said: "PyTypeObject's ob_type should always be set by PyType_Ready" I was referring to the PyTypeObject's that are statically set in C code. Metatypes explicitly have to set the ob_type and that's already handled.

In the current state of things, you have static PyTypeObjects that are being used before calling PyType_Ready due to this macro. This change just standardizes the header of static PyTypeObject throughout the entire codebase.
msg324303 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-08-29 07:13
I was also talking about static C types, it is possible to write types with custom meta types in C code (even if that is even less common than using meta types in the first place). I have extensions where I use PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT without the first argument being &PyType_Type or NULL and this patch would break those.

This part of your patch silently changes the API for CPython in a way that is confusing. With your patch this code changes behaviour:

static PyTypeObject my_type = {
     PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT(&my_meta_type, 0),
     ...
};

This is currently valid code and I use this pattern in my code. It is easy enough to adjust for your patch (just add "Py_TYPE(&my_type) = &my_meta_type;" before the call to PyType_Ready), but that is just a change for changes sake.

Why not just change all invocations of PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT in the CPython tree, if any? 

I do agree that explicitly calling PyType_Ready for all types would be better, but that is a separate issue from changing the way the static PyTypeObject is initialised.  

A patch that does add calls to PyType_Ready should also ensure that this is done before types are actually used (otherwise there is a nonzero chance that the explicit calls don't actually do anything due to the calls to PyType_Ready in strategic places in the interpreter).

Note that your patch tries to accomplish two things:

1) PyType_Ready should be called to initialize types

2) Explicitly setting the type of PyTypeObject instances through PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT is not necessary in the common case. 

I agree with the first item, and am -1 on a change for the second item, but -1 on the current patch for this.
msg324304 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-08-29 07:17
BTW. And that -1 was even before considering that PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT is not a type-object specific macro, but a macro to staticky initialize values of PyVarObject.
msg324326 - (view) Author: Eddie Elizondo (eelizondo) * Date: 2018-08-29 15:41
@ronaldoussoren

* This change currently works for all CPython. If you are using this pattern then you probably want to be using PyType_FromSpec rather than having a static PyTypeObject as discussed in PEP384: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0384. In general, extensions should all be using PyType_FromSpec rather than static PyTypeObjects.

* As mentioned by Erik Bray in the e-mail thread, the usage of a static PyTypeObject with a PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT requires a compile-time constant. This causes problems cross-compatibility problems, especially with Windows. You can read more here: http://iguananaut.net/blog/programming/windows-data-import.html

In general, this pattern is just pervasive. It causes cross-compatibility issues, it can cause users to forget calling PyType_Ready on a type and we are better off without it.

Again, please read the mail thread. Everything that I'm saying here is all discussed there.
msg324345 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-08-29 19:24
Eddie,

I have read the thread and still don't see why breaking existing code is a good thing to do.

As I wrote earlier there are two issues you're trying to address with one patch:

1) Not all types in the CPython tree are initialised using PyType_Ready

Fixing that is ok and the patch for that looks ok. But: I haven't checked if PyType_Ready is called before types are used, if the call to PyType_Ready is done after the type is already implicitly readied the call to PyType_Ready is purely cosmetic.

2) Using PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT(&some_type, ...) causes problems on Windows

I don't agree with the current patch for that because that *silently* changes the semantics of existing code, and hence can break existing C extensions. 

I haven't tested the patch yet, but I do have C extensions that use this pattern and where "&some_type" is not equivalent to NULL.

The correct change for the CPython tree is to change all instances of PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT(&some_type, ...) to PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT(NULL, ...), and then add explicit code to set the type of the type instance where "some_type" is not PyType_Type (AFAIK there aren't any of those in the CPython tree, but there are outside of CPython).


Another reason why changing PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT is not correct is that this can be used to initialize more than just PyTypeObject structs, as the name suggests it is used to initialize PyVarObject values and not just PyTypeObject values. Changing the macro also breaks those.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-07 15:47:11vstinnersetnosy: + vstinner
2019-01-04 19:05:44eric.snowsetnosy: + eric.snow
2018-08-29 19:24:31ronaldoussorensetmessages: + msg324345
2018-08-29 15:41:04eelizondosetmessages: + msg324326
2018-08-29 07:17:00ronaldoussorensetmessages: + msg324304
2018-08-29 07:13:28ronaldoussorensetmessages: + msg324303
2018-08-28 19:59:12eelizondosetmessages: + msg324283
2018-08-28 19:30:15ronaldoussorensetnosy: + twouters, benjamin.peterson
messages: + msg324280
2018-08-28 19:29:45ronaldoussorensetnosy: + ronaldoussoren
messages: + msg324279
2018-08-27 20:27:26eelizondosetkeywords: + patch
stage: patch review
pull_requests: + pull_request8432
2018-08-27 20:25:41eelizondocreate