[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2013-08-27 Thread STINNER Victor 

STINNER Victor added the comment:

Python 3.4 now uses accept4() internally for socket.socket.accept(), the new 
socket is created non-inheritable. See the PEP 446 for more information (PEP 
implemented in the issue #18571).

--
resolution:  - fixed
status: open - closed

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2013-08-27 Thread STINNER Victor 

Changes by STINNER Victor victor.stin...@gmail.com:


--
versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.3

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2013-01-18 Thread STINNER Victor 

STINNER Victor added the comment:

My implementation of the PEP 433 uses accept4() for socket.accept() if the 
(new) cloexec parameter is True:
http://hg.python.org/features/pep-433/file/46b7a077ae87/Modules/socketmodule.c#l1961

The code fallbacks to accept() if accept4() fails with ENOSYS. It happens if 
the glibc version is 2.10 or newer, whereas the Linux kernel is older than 
2.6.28. I didn't test the fallback yet.

I see in changeset 12442ac3f7dd (issue #7523) that SOCK_NONBLOCK is also set in 
the flags parameters of accept4(). I should probably also do that.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2013-01-12 Thread STINNER Victor 

STINNER Victor added the comment:

See the PEP 433 which proposes an unified API to set/unset close-on-exec flag 
on any function creating a file descriptor.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2012-02-28 Thread Matt Joiner 

Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com added the comment:

Can we get this exposed as an os.accept4, and an optional flags parameter to 
socket.socket.accept?

--
nosy: +anacrolix

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-11-06 Thread Vetoshkin Nikita 

Vetoshkin Nikita nikita.vetosh...@gmail.com added the comment:

up?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-11-06 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:

 What value should we assign to sock-sock_timeout if SOCK_NONBLOCK was 
 specified in accept4() call?

The same value as for other non-blocking sockets, IMO.

 And in socket.py should we check as in original accept:
 if getdefaulttimeout() is None and self.gettimeout():
sock.setblocking(True)

I don't think so, since the whole point of accept4() is to override normal 
flags creation.

--
versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-11-06 Thread Vetoshkin Nikita 

Vetoshkin Nikita nikita.vetosh...@gmail.com added the comment:

 The same value as for other non-blocking sockets, IMO.
There are three possible values I think:
1. parent's current sock_timeout
2. global default socket timeout
3. 0

Can you please tell which one? I assume it should be number 3.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-11-06 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:

  The same value as for other non-blocking sockets, IMO.
 There are three possible values I think:
 1. parent's current sock_timeout
 2. global default socket timeout
 3. 0
 
 Can you please tell which one? I assume it should be number 3.

Yes (again, IMO).

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-10-27 Thread Vetoshkin Nikita 

Vetoshkin Nikita nikita.vetosh...@gmail.com added the comment:

Started implementing accept4() socket method and stuck on socket object's 
timeout attribute. What value should we assign to sock-sock_timeout if 
SOCK_NONBLOCK was specified in accept4() call? And in socket.py should we check 
as in original accept:
if getdefaulttimeout() is None and self.gettimeout():
   sock.setblocking(True)

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-06-11 Thread Charles-François Natali 

Charles-François Natali neolo...@free.fr added the comment:

No one seems to object, and since this approach has been suggested by
Martin and  is consistent with the posix module's policy (i.e. a thin
wrapper around the underlying syscall), I guess you can go ahead.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-06-07 Thread Vetoshkin Nikita 

Vetoshkin Nikita nikita.vetosh...@gmail.com added the comment:

Yes, I can.
We decided to expose accept4() as another socket method, not accept() 
replacement?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-06-06 Thread Charles-François Natali 

Charles-François Natali neolo...@free.fr added the comment:

@nvetoshkin
Could you update your patch against py3k?

I've got a couple comments (can't login to Rietveld, it's probably due to the 
change of my tracker account name):

if(flags  ~(SOCK_NONBLOCK | SOCK_CLOEXEC)) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_ValueError,
Wrong flag value);
return NULL;
}

I'm not sure that's necessary:
- accept4() can sanitize its input itself if necessary (will fail with EINVAL)
- if some flag is added, or another OS doesn't use the same flags, it'll fall 
out of sync


#ifdef HAVE_ACCEPT4
 /* These flags are not inherited after accept */
 type = ~(SOCK_NONBLOCK  SOCK_CLOEXEC);
#endif /* HAVE_ACCEPT4 */

SOCK_NONBLOCK  SOCK_CLOEXEC == 0, so this doesn't do much.
Second, you should probably reuse what's done in Lib/socket.py for timeout 
inheritance upon accept (except that here you certainly don't want to set the 
socket to blocking if SOCK_NONBLOCK flag is passed).

You should add a test for that: have a look at test_pipe2 in 
Lib/test/test_posix.py.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-05-23 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Changes by Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr:


--
nosy: +charles-francois.natali, haypo

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2011-02-09 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:

Duplicated in issue11157.

--
nosy: +mmarkk

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue10115] Support accept4() for atomic setting of flags at socket creation

2010-10-22 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:

I've removed the accept4() call in the meantime (in r85796), so that this issue 
can be re-classified as a feature request.

--
priority: critical - normal
title: accept4 can fail with errno 90 - Support accept4() for atomic setting 
of flags at socket creation
type: behavior - feature request

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10115
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com