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 -9
ing 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)).
Best Answer
Unix terminal i/o has traditionally been implemented as some sort of queue. Older kernels used clists. V8 Unix used streams. In most cases, clists and streams are used to implement a portion of the link between a user process (specifically, a file descriptor) and a character device driver (for example, a serial port or a pty).
Pipes are also a queue, but they link user processes (specifically, a pair of file descriptors). There are a variety of implementations of pipes, including sockets; a special type of file; and even STREAMS (STREAMS is a derivative of V8 streams.)
So, streams and pipes are both implementations of a queue, but they are used in different situations.