This is a story about how some bad API design on my part caused some ugly race conditions that were very tricky to break down. I’m writing this story as a word of warning to others! The code itself was written in Haskell, but the lessons apply to anyone working with Unix-style processes.

Introducing typed-process

I maintain both the process library in Haskell, which is the standard way of launching child processes, as well as the typed-process library, which explores some refinements to that API for more user friendliness. The API has two main types: ProcessConfig defines settings for launching a process (command name, environment variables, etc), and Process represents a running child process that can be interacted with. With that, we have some basic API usage that looks like this:

let processConfig = proc "some-executable" ["--flag1", "--flag2"]
process <- startProcess processConfig
hPut (getStdin process) "Input to the process"
output <- hGet (getStdout process)
helperFunction output
hPut (getStdin process) "quit" -- tell the process to quit
exitCode <- waitExitCode process
logInfo $ "Process exited with code " <> displayShow exitCode

This isn’t quite working code, but it gets the idea across pretty nicely.

Exception safety

There’s a problem with the code above: it’s not exception-safe. Let’s say that the helperFunction call fails with a runtime exception. The child process will never receive the "quit" input, we’ll never wait for the child process to end, and ultimately we’ll end up with a process that’s sitting around, twiddling its thumbs, unable to ever exit. (You may think this is a zombie process, but zombie has a specific and different meaning in the Unix world.)

The Haskell ecosystem, like many others, has a method for providing exception safety. We call it the bracket pattern. You combine together resource allocation and cleanup actions using the helper function bracket, and are guaranteed when your block is finished, the cleanup action is called, regardless of how the block finishes.

To make this work, we need a stopProcess function. This function is intelligent: if the process has already exited, stopProcess doesn’t do anything. However, if the process is still running, stopProcess sends it a SIGTERM signal, which for most well-behaved programs will cause it to exit. (Unix processes can actually handle SIGTERM and continue running, but for our cases we’ll pretend like it’s a process death sentence.)

So let’s rewrite the code above with bracket:

let processConfig = proc "some-executable" ["--flag1", "--flag2"]
bracket (startProcess processConfig) stopProcess $ \proccess -> do
  hPut (getStdin process) "Input to the process"
  output <- hGet (getStdout process)
  helperFunction output
  hPut (getStdin process) "quit" -- tell the process to quit
  exitCode <- waitExitCode process
  logInfo ("Process exited with code " <> displayShow exitCode)

And just like that, we have type safety, and avoid runaway processes. Neato!

Let’s walk through the cases above. If any of the actions in the block throw a runtime exception, bracket will trigger stopProcess, resulting in a SIGTERM being sent to the child. If, on the other hand, no exception occurs, we know that the child process has already exited thanks to the waitExitCode call, and therefore stopProcess will be a no-op. That’s exactly the behavior we want.

Following Haskell best practices, we can capture this bracket call into a helper function called withProcess:

withProcess config = bracket (startProcess config) stopProcess

let processConfig = proc "some-executable" ["--flag1", "--flag2"]
withProcess processConfig $ \proccess -> do
  hPut (getStdin process) "Input to the process"
  output <- hGet (getStdout process)
  helperFunction output
  hPut (getStdin process) "quit" -- tell the process to quit
  exitCode <- waitExitCode process
  logInfo ("Process exited with code " <> displayShow exitCode)

And exception safety has been achieved!

Finally, one more addition. A common pattern in working with child processes is checking that the exit code is a success, and throwing an exception if it’s anything else. We have a helper function withProcess_ that performs that exit code checking too. This essentially looks like:

withProcess_ config = bracket
  (startProcess config)
  (\process -> do
      stopProcess process
      checkExitCode process)

Playing with cat

We’re going to perform a cardinal Unix sin: use the cat executable when we’re not actually combining together two different files. Please forgive me, it’s for a good reason.

Below is a fully runnable Haskell script. You can install Stack, copy the code into Main.hs, and run stack Main.hs to run it. The program does the following:

#!/usr/bin/env stack
-- stack --resolver lts-13.26 script
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
import Control.Concurrent.Async (concurrently)
import qualified Data.ByteString as B
import System.IO (hClose, stdout)
import System.Process.Typed

main :: IO ()
main = do
  let config = setStdin createPipe
             $ setStdout createPipe
             $ proc "cat" []
  ((), output) <- withProcess_ config $ \process -> concurrently
    (do B.hPut (getStdin process) "Hello World!\n"
        hClose (getStdin process))
    (do B.hGetContents (getStdout process))
  B.hPut stdout output

When I run this on OS X, I fairly reliably get the expected output:

$ stack Main.hs
Hello World!

However, when I run this on Linux, I will often get the following instead:

$ stack Main.hs
Main.hs: Received ExitFailure (-15) when running
Raw command: cat

Granted, not always, but often enough. So now we have a weird exit failure and some non-determinism, in what appears to be a really simple program. What gives?!?

ExitFailure (-15)

The first thing to identify is what this negative exit code is. Haskell—like a few other ecosystems—uses a negative exit code to indicate that the process exited due to a signal. In this case, that means the child process (cat) died with signal number 15, which is SIGTERM. That’s certainly interesting… where have we seen a SIGTERM come up before? Right, in stopProcess.

But it doesn’t quite make sense that stopProcess would send the signal, since it only does so once the standard output pipe from the child process has been closed. And we know that cat exits at exactly the same time as it closes its standard output pipe… right?

Race condition!

Hopefully my scare italics above helped a bit. No, as it turns out, the pipe’s closure and the child’s exit are not simultaneous. In fact, our cat process will end up doing something like the following:

  1. read from stdin
  2. If there was more data: write to stdout and return to step 1
  3. If there was no more data, exit loop and continue with step 4
  4. Close stdin
  5. Close stdout
  6. Exit with exit code 0 (indicating success)

The parent process, meanwhile, will repeatedly call read on the read end of the child’s stdout pipe, and as soon as that read indicates end of file (EOF), the block will exit, and withProcess_ will do two things:

  1. Call stopProcess
  2. Call checkExitCode to make sure the process exited successfully

There are multiple interleavings of events that can occur. The success case looks like this:

  1. Child closes stdout
  2. Child exits with exit code 0
  3. Parent receives EOF on read
  4. Parent calls stopProcess, which is a no-op (child is already exited)
  5. checkExitCode gets exit code 0 and is happy

However, it’s also possible with a different process timing to get:

  1. Child closes stdout
  2. Parent receives EOF on read
  3. Parent calls stopProcess, which sends a SIGTERM to the child
  4. Child never has a chance to return exit code 0, it’s already dead
  5. checkExitCode sees that the child exited due to a SIGTERM and throws an exception

This may seem like a corner case, but it’s already bitten me twice: first in a test suite, and secondly as a major annoyance in the new Stack release.

Who to blame?

Well, as usually, the person to blame is myself.

It was me all the time

Usage of the Unix process API can be tricky to get right, but it’s clearly documented and well executed. And I’d argue that my usage of withProcess_ is the right kind of abstraction. No, the problem is the implementation of withProcess_. Let’s step through it again:

  1. Launch a process
  2. Run some block with the process
  3. However that block exits (normal or exception), call stopProcess and then ensure there’s a success exit code

In our first usage above, we called waitExitCode in the block, which guaranteed in the success case stopProcess would always end up as a no-op. Everything was fine. The problem was I made the assumption that cat‘s pipes closing was the same as the child process exiting. We know that’s not true. However, given that this bug hit me twice, it’s fair to say I’ve created an API which encourages misuse.

Instead, here’s what I think is the better implementation for withProcess_:

  1. Launch a process
  2. Run some block with the process
  3. If that block throws an exception, terminate the child process with stopProcess
  4. If that block succeeds, wait for the process to exit and then check that its exit code is a success

With this tweak to behavior, the code calling cat above is safe, and I can sleep better at night.


Rolling out a new set of behavior which silently (meaning: no compile-time change) modifies behavior at runtime is dangerous. People using withProcess_ may be relying on exactly its current behavior. Therefore, instead of replacing the current withProcess_ behavior, the roll-out strategy is:

  1. Introduce a new function withProcessTerm_, which has the same behavior as withProcess_ today
  2. Introduce a new function withProcessWait_, which has the new behavior I just described above
  3. Deprecate withProcess_ with a message indicating that the caller should use one of the replacement functions instead

This will encourage users of typed-process to analyze their usages of withProcess_, see if they are susceptible to the bug described here, and choose the appropriate replacement.

Further reading

If you’re interested in learning more about any of this, here are some (hopefully) helpful links:

Do you like this blog post and need help with industrial Haskell, Rust or DevOps? Contact us.

Share this