This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author eryksun
Recipients efiop, eryksun, gregory.p.smith, paul.moore, steve.dower, tim.golden, vstinner, zach.ware
Date 2019-07-01.13:49:36
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1561988976.7.0.716631986922.issue37380@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
> Without accessing private attributes, I don't see how someone can 
> discover the private handle. So for me, it's more a serious bug in an 
> application, no? Blindly closing random handles doesn't sound like a 
> good idea to me.

Say a library calls CreateEventW and gets handle 32. It passes this handle to some other library, which uses the event and closes the handle when it no longer needs it. But due to a miscommunication in the documentation, the first library thinks the handle remains open. Now handle 32 is free for reuse, but the library doesn't know this. subprocess.Popen subsequently calls CreateProcessW and gets handle 32. Later on, the library closes handle 32, making it invalid, at least until it gets assigned to some other kernel object.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-07-01 13:49:36eryksunsetrecipients: + eryksun, gregory.p.smith, paul.moore, vstinner, tim.golden, zach.ware, steve.dower, efiop
2019-07-01 13:49:36eryksunsetmessageid: <1561988976.7.0.716631986922.issue37380@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-07-01 13:49:36eryksunlinkissue37380 messages
2019-07-01 13:49:36eryksuncreate