is 'sed' thread safe












2















If I have a shell/python script that uses sed to modify a file in place based on user inputs, and then two users run the same script at the same time or approx. same time, is 'sed' thread safe ? Or perhaps it is not an issue because the file_descripor that was opened by the first thread will be used to lock the file anyway ? thx










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    Slightly more info wanted. How do you use sed from Python (and why, can't Python do things like that fairly effortlessly?).

    – Kusalananda
    5 hours ago
















2















If I have a shell/python script that uses sed to modify a file in place based on user inputs, and then two users run the same script at the same time or approx. same time, is 'sed' thread safe ? Or perhaps it is not an issue because the file_descripor that was opened by the first thread will be used to lock the file anyway ? thx










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    Slightly more info wanted. How do you use sed from Python (and why, can't Python do things like that fairly effortlessly?).

    – Kusalananda
    5 hours ago














2












2








2








If I have a shell/python script that uses sed to modify a file in place based on user inputs, and then two users run the same script at the same time or approx. same time, is 'sed' thread safe ? Or perhaps it is not an issue because the file_descripor that was opened by the first thread will be used to lock the file anyway ? thx










share|improve this question
















If I have a shell/python script that uses sed to modify a file in place based on user inputs, and then two users run the same script at the same time or approx. same time, is 'sed' thread safe ? Or perhaps it is not an issue because the file_descripor that was opened by the first thread will be used to lock the file anyway ? thx







linux sed python






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137




42.9k1159137










asked 5 hours ago









terreysterreys

1613




1613








  • 2





    Slightly more info wanted. How do you use sed from Python (and why, can't Python do things like that fairly effortlessly?).

    – Kusalananda
    5 hours ago














  • 2





    Slightly more info wanted. How do you use sed from Python (and why, can't Python do things like that fairly effortlessly?).

    – Kusalananda
    5 hours ago








2




2





Slightly more info wanted. How do you use sed from Python (and why, can't Python do things like that fairly effortlessly?).

– Kusalananda
5 hours ago





Slightly more info wanted. How do you use sed from Python (and why, can't Python do things like that fairly effortlessly?).

– Kusalananda
5 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














I'm not going to nitpick on the awful terminology, but yes, GNU sed with its -i ("in-place") flag could be safely used by more than one process at the same time without any extra locking, because sed is not actually modifying the file in-place, but it's redirecting the output to a temporary file, and if everything goes well, it will rename(2) (move) the temporary file to the original file, and the rename(2) is guaranteed to be atomic:



$ strace sed -i s/o/e/g foo.txt
open("foo.txt", O_RDONLY) = 3
...
open("./sedDe80VL", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0600) = 4
...
read(3, "foon", 4096) = 4
...
write(4, "feen", 4) = 4
read(3, "", 4096) = 0
...
close(3) = 0
close(4) = 0
rename("./sedDe80VL", "foo.txt") = 0


At any point, foo.txt will refer either to the complete original file or to the complete processed file, never to something in between the two.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago








  • 2





    @ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

    – mosvy
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f504810%2fis-sed-thread-safe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














I'm not going to nitpick on the awful terminology, but yes, GNU sed with its -i ("in-place") flag could be safely used by more than one process at the same time without any extra locking, because sed is not actually modifying the file in-place, but it's redirecting the output to a temporary file, and if everything goes well, it will rename(2) (move) the temporary file to the original file, and the rename(2) is guaranteed to be atomic:



$ strace sed -i s/o/e/g foo.txt
open("foo.txt", O_RDONLY) = 3
...
open("./sedDe80VL", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0600) = 4
...
read(3, "foon", 4096) = 4
...
write(4, "feen", 4) = 4
read(3, "", 4096) = 0
...
close(3) = 0
close(4) = 0
rename("./sedDe80VL", "foo.txt") = 0


At any point, foo.txt will refer either to the complete original file or to the complete processed file, never to something in between the two.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago








  • 2





    @ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

    – mosvy
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago
















5














I'm not going to nitpick on the awful terminology, but yes, GNU sed with its -i ("in-place") flag could be safely used by more than one process at the same time without any extra locking, because sed is not actually modifying the file in-place, but it's redirecting the output to a temporary file, and if everything goes well, it will rename(2) (move) the temporary file to the original file, and the rename(2) is guaranteed to be atomic:



$ strace sed -i s/o/e/g foo.txt
open("foo.txt", O_RDONLY) = 3
...
open("./sedDe80VL", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0600) = 4
...
read(3, "foon", 4096) = 4
...
write(4, "feen", 4) = 4
read(3, "", 4096) = 0
...
close(3) = 0
close(4) = 0
rename("./sedDe80VL", "foo.txt") = 0


At any point, foo.txt will refer either to the complete original file or to the complete processed file, never to something in between the two.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago








  • 2





    @ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

    – mosvy
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago














5












5








5







I'm not going to nitpick on the awful terminology, but yes, GNU sed with its -i ("in-place") flag could be safely used by more than one process at the same time without any extra locking, because sed is not actually modifying the file in-place, but it's redirecting the output to a temporary file, and if everything goes well, it will rename(2) (move) the temporary file to the original file, and the rename(2) is guaranteed to be atomic:



$ strace sed -i s/o/e/g foo.txt
open("foo.txt", O_RDONLY) = 3
...
open("./sedDe80VL", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0600) = 4
...
read(3, "foon", 4096) = 4
...
write(4, "feen", 4) = 4
read(3, "", 4096) = 0
...
close(3) = 0
close(4) = 0
rename("./sedDe80VL", "foo.txt") = 0


At any point, foo.txt will refer either to the complete original file or to the complete processed file, never to something in between the two.






share|improve this answer















I'm not going to nitpick on the awful terminology, but yes, GNU sed with its -i ("in-place") flag could be safely used by more than one process at the same time without any extra locking, because sed is not actually modifying the file in-place, but it's redirecting the output to a temporary file, and if everything goes well, it will rename(2) (move) the temporary file to the original file, and the rename(2) is guaranteed to be atomic:



$ strace sed -i s/o/e/g foo.txt
open("foo.txt", O_RDONLY) = 3
...
open("./sedDe80VL", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0600) = 4
...
read(3, "foon", 4096) = 4
...
write(4, "feen", 4) = 4
read(3, "", 4096) = 0
...
close(3) = 0
close(4) = 0
rename("./sedDe80VL", "foo.txt") = 0


At any point, foo.txt will refer either to the complete original file or to the complete processed file, never to something in between the two.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 5 hours ago

























answered 5 hours ago









mosvymosvy

7,7921530




7,7921530








  • 1





    But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago








  • 2





    @ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

    – mosvy
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago














  • 1





    But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago








  • 2





    @ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

    – mosvy
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

    – ilkkachu
    4 hours ago








1




1





But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

– ilkkachu
4 hours ago







But what can happen is that two copies of sed start reading the file, make different changes, storing them to their respective temporary files, which are then renamed into place one after other, without regard for the fact that there was another sed working on the file at the same time. The changes made by one of the sed processes would be lost.

– ilkkachu
4 hours ago






2




2





@ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

– mosvy
4 hours ago





@ilkkachu that will still be completely consistent -- the file will be either modified by both processes in turn (in any order) or by just one of them. At no point will the file contain garbage resulting from both processes modifying it at the same time.

– mosvy
4 hours ago




4




4





it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

– ilkkachu
4 hours ago





it won't be total garbage, but having changes lost can still be an issue. The question refers to the file "being locked", and locking would usually refer to the second sed process waiting until the first completed. That might just be awful terminology on their part; it's hard to say what they really care about, but that particular issue is still possible.

– ilkkachu
4 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f504810%2fis-sed-thread-safe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten