← 输入框|github.com|刷新
Skip to content

macOS 10.14 Mojave crashes in multiprocessing #79400

Closed

Description

@warsaw
BPO 35219
Nosy @warsaw, @ronaldoussoren, @ned-deily, @applio, @pablogsal
Superseder
  • bpo-33725: Python crashes on macOS after fork with no exec
  • 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 2018-11-14.20:56:16.470>
    created_at = <Date 2018-11-12.17:57:32.609>
    labels = ['3.7', '3.8']
    title = 'macOS 10.14 Mojave crashes in multiprocessing'
    updated_at = <Date 2018-11-14.20:56:16.468>
    user = 'https://github.com/warsaw'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2018-11-14.20:56:16.468>
    actor = 'barry'
    assignee = 'none'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2018-11-14.20:56:16.470>
    closer = 'barry'
    components = []
    creation = <Date 2018-11-12.17:57:32.609>
    creator = 'barry'
    dependencies = []
    files = []
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 35219
    keywords = []
    message_count = 14.0
    messages = ['329747', '329752', '329753', '329754', '329757', '329758', '329760', '329780', '329784', '329795', '329796', '329869', '329928', '329935']
    nosy_count = 5.0
    nosy_names = ['barry', 'ronaldoussoren', 'ned.deily', 'davin', 'pablogsal']
    pr_nums = []
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = 'duplicate'
    stage = 'resolved'
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = '33725'
    type = None
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue35219'
    versions = ['Python 3.6', 'Python 3.7', 'Python 3.8']

    Activity

    1. warsaw commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      As we're beginning to roll out macOS 10.14 High Sierra, we're seeing an increase in core files inside /cores. This can consume a ton of disk space if you have coredumps enabled. I don't have a short reproducer yet, but we believe this is related to changes in macOS behavior around fork(). Here are some clues:

      ansible/ansible#32499 (comment)

      https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50168647/multiprocessing-causes-python-to-crash-and-gives-an-error-may-have-been-in-progr/52230415#52230415

      http://sealiesoftware.com/blog/archive/2017/6/5/Objective-C_and_fork_in_macOS_1013.html

    2. changed the title [-]macOS 10.14 High Sierra crashes in multiprocessing[/-] [+]macOS 10.14 Mojave crashes in multiprocessing[/+] on Nov 12, 2018
    3. warsaw commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      That should of course be 10.14 Mojave.

    4. pablogsal commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @pablogsal
      Member

      Apparently setting the env variable OBJC_DISABLE_INITIALIZE_FORK_SAFETY=YES should fix some fork-related changes. Have you tried already doing this? Does it change the behaviour of the errors in any way?

    5. warsaw commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      On Nov 12, 2018, at 13:34, Pablo Galindo Salgado <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

      Apparently setting the env variable OBJC_DISABLE_INITIALIZE_FORK_SAFETY=YES should fix some fork-related changes. Have you tried already doing this? Does it change the behaviour of the errors in any way?

      Yes, sorry I got distracted before I could add a comment about this. I have indeed tested this and it does prevent the core files.

    6. pablogsal commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @pablogsal
      Member

      Apparently, GitLab have a more permanent solution around this by enabling the Objective-C runtime before any forking happens:

      https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/16649/diffs

    7. pablogsal commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @pablogsal
      Member

      This can a duplicate of https://bugs.python.org/issue33725

    8. warsaw commented on Nov 12, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      I'm not sure whether it's a duplicate or not, since in my case it doesn't hang, but instead core dumps. It's seems like the reasoning given in the Ruby bug is relevant to Python too, so maybe we should adopt the same workaround. For our internal projects, I'm probably just going to set the environment variable for now.

      I'd love to know what Ned and Ronald thing, thus cc'ing them.

    9. warsaw commented on Nov 13, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      I've done a fair bit of testing and it seems rather inconsistent as to whether either of these work when added right before an explicit call to os.fork():

      os.environ['OBJC_DISABLE_INITIALIZE_FORK_SAFETY'] = 'YES'

      ctyles.cdll.LoadLibrary('/System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Foundation')

      Neither of these seems to reliably prevent the __NSPlaceholderDate warning, nor prevent the core dumps. The best I've been able to do is to prevent them by setting the environment variable *before* the parent process starts (i.e. outside of the Python code of the process).

    10. warsaw commented on Nov 13, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      Based on my testing, the environment variable has to be set before the parent process starts. Neither os.environ nor os.putenv seem to do the trick.

    11. warsaw commented on Nov 13, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      I'm still testing this solution, but it looks like if you set the environment variable, and then double fork, the granchild won't crash. Roughly:

      os.putenv('OBJC_DISABLE_INITIALIZE_FORK_SAFETY', 'YES')
      pid = os.fork()
      if pid == 0:
          subpid = os.fork()
          if subpid == 0:
              # I'm in a safe grandchild
    12. warsaw commented on Nov 13, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      Nope, actually double fork doesn't work. It's misleading because in my testing, the first invocation of the process causes the core dump, but subsequent runs do not.

    13. warsaw commented on Nov 13, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      I am going to dupe this to 33725 after all.

    14. applio commented on Nov 14, 2018

      @applio
      Member

      Resolution is marked dupe but status is still open. Are we closing this one or is there a more specific remedy for this situation (as opposed to what bpo-33725 discusses) that would be helpful to document?

    15. warsaw commented on Nov 14, 2018

      @warsaw
      MemberAuthor

      Closing in favor of bpo-33725

    16. transferred this issue fromon Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Assignees

    No one assigned

      Labels

      Projects

      No projects

        Milestone

        No milestone

        Relationships

        None yet

        Development

        No branches or pull requests

        Issue actions