Skip to content
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

Fatal Python error "XXX block stack overflow" when exception stacks >10 #84115

Closed
myzhang1029 mannequin opened this issue Mar 11, 2020 · 18 comments
Closed

Fatal Python error "XXX block stack overflow" when exception stacks >10 #84115

myzhang1029 mannequin opened this issue Mar 11, 2020 · 18 comments
Labels
3.8 only security fixes 3.9 only security fixes 3.10 only security fixes interpreter-core (Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs) type-crash A hard crash of the interpreter, possibly with a core dump

Comments

@myzhang1029
Copy link
Mannequin

myzhang1029 mannequin commented Mar 11, 2020

BPO 39934
Nosy @ambv, @markshannon, @serhiy-storchaka, @pablogsal, @myzhang1029, @iritkatriel
PRs
  • bpo-39934: Account for control blocks in 'except' in compiler. #22395
  • [3.9] bpo-39934: Account for control blocks in 'except' in compiler. (GH-22395) #23303
  • Files
  • exception_nest.py: Run exception_nest.py and run the generated python code
  • 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 = None
    closed_at = <Date 2021-05-05.10:53:27.428>
    created_at = <Date 2020-03-11.13:24:52.447>
    labels = ['interpreter-core', '3.10', '3.8', '3.9', 'type-crash']
    title = 'Fatal Python error "XXX block stack overflow" when exception stacks >10'
    updated_at = <Date 2021-05-05.10:53:27.427>
    user = 'https://github.com/myzhang1029'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2021-05-05.10:53:27.427>
    actor = 'iritkatriel'
    assignee = 'none'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2021-05-05.10:53:27.428>
    closer = 'iritkatriel'
    components = ['Interpreter Core']
    creation = <Date 2020-03-11.13:24:52.447>
    creator = 'myzhang1029'
    dependencies = []
    files = ['48969']
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 39934
    keywords = ['patch']
    message_count = 18.0
    messages = ['363914', '377433', '377434', '377437', '377439', '377440', '377441', '377444', '377445', '377490', '378178', '378192', '381280', '385035', '385037', '385039', '385042', '393002']
    nosy_count = 6.0
    nosy_names = ['lukasz.langa', 'Mark.Shannon', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'pablogsal', 'myzhang1029', 'iritkatriel']
    pr_nums = ['22395', '23303']
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = 'fixed'
    stage = 'resolved'
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = None
    type = 'crash'
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue39934'
    versions = ['Python 3.8', 'Python 3.9', 'Python 3.10']

    @myzhang1029
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    myzhang1029 mannequin commented Mar 11, 2020

    I apologize for describing this issue badly, but I'll try anyway.
    The code to demonstrate the issue is attached, so it might be better to read that instead.
    I noticed that when more than 10 exceptions are raised sequentially (i.e. one from another or one during the handling of another), the interpreter crashes saying "Fatal Python error: XXX block stack overflow".
    This happens in python 3.7, 3.8 and development(git 39c3493) versions, but not in python2.7. Using ipython also fixes this issue.
    I know this case is rare, but the maximum number of recursions is more than 2000, and the maximum number of statically nested blocks sepcified in frameobject.c is 20, so I'm pretty sure this isn't intended behavior.

    @myzhang1029 myzhang1029 mannequin added type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error 3.7 (EOL) end of life interpreter-core (Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs) labels Mar 11, 2020
    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    The error is coming from here:

    Py_FatalError("block stack overflow");

    and CO_MAXBLOCKS is defined in Include/cpython/code.h
    #define CO_MAXBLOCKS 20 /* Max static block nesting within a function */

    This is not about recursion or about exception, it's about static nesting level.

    There is an example here showing an input that gives the same error with >20 nested while blocks:

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    In summary, I think this is not-a-bug.

    @serhiy-storchaka
    Copy link
    Member

    It is a bug. Compiler explicitly checks if the number of nested "try" blocks does not exceed the limit of CO_MAXBLOCKS, but it does not count implicit "try" blocks inserted when your assign an exception in the "except" clause.

    try:
        ...
    except Exception as e:
        ...
    

    is actually translated to

    try:
        ...
    except Exception:
        try:
            e = ...
            ...
        finally:
            e = None
            del e
    

    So we have double number of nested "try" blocks.

    @serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka added 3.8 only security fixes 3.9 only security fixes 3.10 only security fixes type-crash A hard crash of the interpreter, possibly with a core dump and removed 3.7 (EOL) end of life type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error labels Sep 24, 2020
    @serhiy-storchaka
    Copy link
    Member

    Humm, my supposition was not absolutely correct. The cause is that the compiler and the interpreter use the stack of size CO_MAXBLOCKS for different things. The interpreter pushes a thing for the "except" clause, while the compiler does not do it.

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    Unlike the 22 nested while,

    if 1:
      if 2:
        ...
        if 22:
            pass

    doesn't error. Is that correct?

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    Another oddity:

    This gives the error:
    for x in '1':
    for x in '2':
    for x in '3':
    for x in '4':
    for x in '5':
    for x in '6':
    for x in '8':
    for x in '9':
    for x in '10':
    for x in '11':
    for x in '12':
    for x in '13':
    for x in '14':
    for x in '15':
    for x in '16':
    for x in '17':
    for x in '18':
    for x in '19':
    for x in '20':
    for x in '21':
    for x in '22':
    pass

    but this doesn't:

    for x in '1':
     for x in '2':
      for x in '3':
       for x in '4':
        for x in '5':
         for x in '6':
          for x in '8':
           for x in '9':
            for x in '10':
             for x in '11':
              for x in '12':
               for x in '13':
                for x in '14':
                 for x in '15':
                  for x in '16':
                   for x in '17':
                    for x in '18':
                     for x in '19':
                      for x in '20':
                       for x in '21':
                        pass
                       else:
                        for x in '22':
                         pass

    @markshannon
    Copy link
    Member

    iritkatriel

    What error do you see and on what version?

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    On windows 10, master:

    python.bat --version
    Running Release|Win32 interpreter...
    Python 3.10.0a0

    python.bat x.py
    Running Release|Win32 interpreter...
    SyntaxError: too many statically nested blocks

    That's when x.py has the nested for loops without else. The error goes away if I add the else.

    @markshannon
    Copy link
    Member

    New changeset 02d126a by Mark Shannon in branch 'master':
    bpo-39934: Account for control blocks in 'except' in compiler. (GH-22395)
    02d126a

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    After studying Mark's patch and the rest of the code, I understand the for loop oddity.

    The else block of the for loop comes after the
    compiler_pop_fblock(c, FOR_LOOP, start);

    So you can do this all day and it won't complain:

    for x in '1': pass
    else:
     for x in '2': pass
     else:
      for x in '3': pass
      else:
       for x in '4': pass
       else:
        for x in '5': pass
        else:
         for x in '6': pass
         else:
          for x in '7': pass
          else:
           for x in '8': pass
           else:
            for x in '9': pass
            else:
             for x in '10': pass
             else:
              for x in '11': pass
              else:
               for x in '12': pass
               else:
                for x in '13': pass
                else:
                 for x in '14': pass
                 else:
                  for x in '15': pass
                  else:
                   for x in '16': pass
                   else:
                    for x in '17': pass
                    else:
                     for x in '18': pass
                     else:
                      for x in '19': pass
                      else:
                       for x in '20': pass
                       else:
                        for x in '21': pass
                        else:
                         for x in '22': pass
                         else:
                          for x in '23': pass
                          else:
                           for x in '24': pass
                           else:
                            for x in '25': pass
                            else:
                             for x in '26': pass
                             else:
                              for x in '27': pass
                              else:
                               for x in '28': pass
                               else:
                                for x in '29': pass

    I guess the same goes for while loops, and the else of a try-except.

    Since If blocks were deliberately left out of this game, I'm assuming that this "static nesting" is actually number of frames, rather than true static nesting. If that is the case then there is no issue here and we can close this ticket.

    But if this is something to be fixed, then I am happy to make a patch along the lines of Mark's (which I partially already have).

    @pablogsal
    Copy link
    Member

    PR 22395 should be backported to 3.8 and 3.9

    @markshannon
    Copy link
    Member

    New changeset 48a9c0e by Irit Katriel in branch '3.9':
    [3.9] bpo-39934: Account for control blocks in 'except' in compiler. (GH-22395) (GH-23303)
    48a9c0e

    @markshannon
    Copy link
    Member

    Does this need backporting to 3.8, or is 3.9 sufficient?

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    There were additional merge conflicts when I tried to create a manual 3.8 backport, more significant than the 3.9 ones IIRC.

    @markshannon
    Copy link
    Member

    Pablo, are you OK closing this without a 3.8 backport?

    @pablogsal
    Copy link
    Member

    Pablo, are you OK closing this without a 3.8 backport?

    I would be supportive, but we should check with Łukasz as he is the release manager of 3.8

    @iritkatriel
    Copy link
    Member

    This was fixed in 3.9+ and 3.8 is in security fix now, so closing.

    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    3.8 only security fixes 3.9 only security fixes 3.10 only security fixes interpreter-core (Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs) type-crash A hard crash of the interpreter, possibly with a core dump
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    4 participants