bpo-42606: Support POSIX atomicity guarantee of O_APPEND on Windows#23712
Open
izbyshev wants to merge 1 commit intopython:mainfrom
Open
bpo-42606: Support POSIX atomicity guarantee of O_APPEND on Windows#23712izbyshev wants to merge 1 commit intopython:mainfrom
izbyshev wants to merge 1 commit intopython:mainfrom
Conversation
On POSIX-conforming systems, O_APPEND flag for open() must ensure that no intervening file modification occurs between changing the file offset and the write operation[1]. In effect, two processes that independently opened the same file with O_APPEND can't overwrite each other's data. On Windows, however, the Microsoft C runtime implements O_APPEND as an lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END) followed by write(), which obviously doesn't provide the above guarantee. This affects both os.open() and the builtin open() Python functions, which rely on _wopen() from MSVCRT. One way to achieve the desired behavior is to ensure that the Windows handle backing the MSVCRT file descriptor has FILE_APPEND_DATA access right, but doesn't have FILE_WRITE_DATA. This makes the Windows kernel enforce the described semantics. To avoid full reimplementation of _wopen(), implement the above by duplicating the MSVCRT-created handle with fixed up access rights and wrapping it with a new file descriptor. Note that handles created by functions like os.dup() will still have the correct access rights (and thus atomic behavior) because MSVCRT duplicates them with DUPLICATE_SAME_ACCESS flag. [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/write.html
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
|
Why this has not been review since 2020? |
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
On POSIX-conforming systems, O_APPEND flag for open() must ensure
that no intervening file modification occurs between changing the file
offset and the write operation[1]. In effect, two processes that
independently opened the same file with O_APPEND can't overwrite
each other's data. On Windows, however, the Microsoft C runtime
implements O_APPEND as an lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END) followed by write(),
which obviously doesn't provide the above guarantee. This affects
both os.open() and the builtin open() Python functions, which rely on
_wopen() from MSVCRT.
One way to achieve the desired behavior is to ensure that the Windows
handle backing the MSVCRT file descriptor has FILE_APPEND_DATA access
right, but doesn't have FILE_WRITE_DATA. This makes the Windows kernel
enforce the described semantics.
To avoid full reimplementation of _wopen(), implement the above by
duplicating the MSVCRT-created handle with fixed up access rights and
wrapping it with a new file descriptor. Note that handles created by
functions like os.dup() will still have the correct access rights (and
thus atomic behavior) because MSVCRT duplicates them with
DUPLICATE_SAME_ACCESS flag.
[1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/write.html
https://bugs.python.org/issue42606