Non-blocking buffered named pipe

Why not just do:

{ echo foo; echo bar;} > /tmp/p

If you want your controlling script to leave the pipe open, you can do:

exec 3<> /tmp/p

Opening a named pipe in read-write mode is to avoid that to block if the pipe hasn't been opened yet. That would instantiate it if it wasn't yet. It works on Linux at least but is not guaranteed to by POSIX.

Alternatively (and portably):

: < /tmp/p & exec 3> /tmp/p

Then instead of having each process open the named pipe, you can also do:

cmd >&3

And in the end, you'd do:

exec 3>&-

To close the writing end to let readers know it's finished.

change all <s to >s and <s to >s if you need the logic to be the other way round.

If you get rid of the killing and shutdown stuff (which is unsafe and you may, in an extreme, but not unfathomable case when child.py dies before the (head -n 1 shutdown; kill -9 $parent) & subshell does end up kill -9ing some innocent process), then child.py won't be terminating because your parent.py isn't behaving like a good UNIX citizen.

The cat std_out & subprocess will have finished by the time you send the quit message, because the writer to std_out is child_original.py, which finishes upon receiving quit at which moment it closes its stdout, which is the std_out pipe and that close will make the cat subprocess finish.

The cat > std_in isn't finishing because it's reading from a pipe originating in the parent.py process and the parent.py process didn't bother to close that pipe. If it did, cat > stdin_in and consequently the whole child.py would finish by itself and you wouldn't need the shutdown pipe or the killing part (killing a process that isn't your child on UNIX is always a potential security hole if a race condition caused due to rapid PID recycling should occur).

Processes at the right end of a pipeline generally only finish once they're done reading their stdin, but since you're not closing that (child.stdin), you're implicitly telling the child process "wait, I have more input for you" and then you go kill it because it does wait for more input from you as it should.

In short, make parent.py behave reasonably:

from __future__ import print_function
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
import os

child = Popen('./child.py', stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE)

for letter in 'abcde':
    print('Parent writes to child: ', letter)
    child.stdin.write(letter+'\n')
    child.stdin.flush()
    response = child.stdout.readline()
    print('Response from the child:', response)
    assert response.rstrip() == letter.upper(), 'Wrong response'

child.stdin.write('quit\n')
child.stdin.flush()
child.stdin.close()
print('Waiting for the child to terminate...')
child.wait()
print('Done!')

And your child.py can be as simple as

#!/bin/sh
cat std_out &
cat > std_in
wait #basically to assert that cat std_out has finished at this point

(Note that I got rid of that fd dup calls because otherwise you'd need to close both child.stdin and the child_stdin duplicate).

Since parent.py operates in line-oriented fashion, gnu cat is unbuffered (as mikeserv pointed out) and child_original.py operates in a line oriented fashion, you've effectively got the whole thing line-buffered.

Note on Cat: Unbufferred might not be the luckiest term, as gnu cat does use a buffer. What it doesn't do is try to get the whole buffer full before writing things out (unlike stdio). Basically it makes read requests to the os for a specific size (its buffer size), and writes whatever it receives without waiting to get a whole line or the whole buffer. (read(2) can be lazy and give you only what it can give you at the moment rather than the whole buffer you've asked for.)

(You can inspect the source code at http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/cat.c ; safe_read (used instead of plain read) is in the gnulib submodule and it's a very simple wrapper around read(2) that abstracts away EINTR (see the man page)).