Please do not force push. To contribute cleanly, please read https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/pull-request-lifecycle/#pullrequest.

This doesn't guard the read though. And the read through sys.flags is probably difficult to guard because it's an "immutable" object and so shouldn't be changing once it's visible

This doesn't guard the read though. And the read through sys.flags is probably difficult to guard because it's an "immutable" object and so shouldn't be changing once it's visible

Good point — you're right that the read path through sys.flags isn't
guarded by the new mutex, so a reader can still observe the old slot
while a writer replaces and decref's it (use-after-free).

A few options I see:

1. Stop updating sys.flags.int_max_str_digits at runtime entirely —
   treat sys.flags as startup-only (its documented immutability),
   and let sys.get_int_max_str_digits() be the single source of truth
   for the current value. This removes the racy shared object.

2. Atomic store/load of the slot pointer plus deferred reclamation
   (QSBR) for the old value — keeps the current API but is more
   machinery.

3. Replace sys.flags with a fresh struct sequence on each update.

Option 1 looks cleanest and matches the "immutable" intent, but it's
a behaviour change. Which direction would you prefer? Happy to redo
the PR around option 1 if that's the right call.

This conversation seems to go against our AI policy. Human interaction is necessary, don't let your agents in automated mode. Please read https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/ai-tools/#guidelines-for-using-ai-tools.

This conversation seems to go against our AI policy. Human interaction is necessary, don't let your agents in automated mode. Please read https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/ai-tools/#guidelines-for-using-ai-tools.

Sorry — I used an AI assistant to draft PR replies and posted them
without reviewing properly (the first one was off-topic). I'll handle
discussion myself from here.

On the technical side: I understand the mutex doesn't protect reads
through sys.flags. I'm happy to rework the approach once there's
guidance on whether runtime updates to sys.flags should stop entirely.

PyConfig_Set() per PEP 741 in 3.14 is a public API that mutates various other sys.flags values at runtime. It is no longer correct to claim that it is a tuple of command line flags that never changes after the interpreter starts. I do not think changing what happens with int_max_str_digits would be right at this point.

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

we don't need a static global mutex. use Py_BEGIN_CRITICAL_SECTION on the flags object instead.

I don't think that works because there's no thread-safety guards on any of the reads from the flags object (because it's a tuple-like object so considered immutable)

overall I don't think this PR is the right way to accomplish this

I do agree with this though

PyConfig_Set() per PEP 741 in 3.14 is a public API that mutates various other sys.flags values at runtime. It is no longer correct to claim that it is a tuple of command line flags that never changes after the interpreter starts. I do not think changing what happens with int_max_str_digits would be right at this point.

Indeed. Then struct sequence doesn't look to be the right data structure for this sys attribute anymore. Or, I suspect, we will reinvent the wheel (dict?).

I don't think that works because there's no thread-safety guards on any of the reads from the flags object (because it's a tuple-like object so considered immutable)

Maybe use a dict subclass (to make backward-compatible __getattr__) instead of the named tuple? Mutating of the struct sequence breaks the contract in docs:

void PyStructSequence_SetItem(PyObject *p, Py_ssize_t pos, PyObject *o)
[...]
Sets the field at index pos of the struct sequence p to value o. Like PyTuple_SET_ITEM(), this should only be used to fill in brand new instances.

CC @vstinner (as PEP author)

Edit: So far, option (3) from proposed above seems to be an alternative to this.

its perfectly fine for it to be a structsequence. we should probably just do as tuples do and replace the instance with a new structsequence instance upon each mutation (a copy with one element changed) instead of trying to treat that as mutable or piling even more odd "some elements can change via getitem/getattr implementations returning new info" shapes on top of it.

the design mistake was ever using tuples for anything in the 1990s followed by recognizing that namedtuples weren't a solution to their ills in the 2000s. IIRC that's how structsequence came into being? an odd duck shaped thing that floats to preserve legacy API expectations while letting us add new .field_names.

the joys of the standard library and specifically old things like sys.

You should also update _PySys_UpdateConfig() to acquire the lock to call set_flags_from_config().

make_flags() doesn't need to be modified, since sys.flags doesn't exist when it's called.

I don't think that works because there's no thread-safety guards on any of the reads from the flags object (because it's a tuple-like object so considered immutable)

Would you mind to elaborate why a lock would also be needed to read a sys.flags flag?

sys.flags is a structseq instance which inherits from tuple. Getting a tuple item doesn't use any lock:

static PyObject *
tuple_item(PyObject *op, Py_ssize_t i)
{
    PyTupleObject *a = _PyTuple_CAST(op);
    if (i < 0 || i >= Py_SIZE(a)) {
        PyErr_SetString(PyExc_IndexError, "tuple index out of range");
        return NULL;
    }
    return Py_NewRef(a->ob_item[i]);
}

its perfectly fine for it to be a structsequence. we should probably just do as tuples do and replace the instance with a new structsequence instance upon each mutation

Ah, that sounds like a reasonable solution.

I wrote PR gh-151402 to implement the other option: PyConfig_Set() and sys.set_int_max_str_digits() now replace sys.flags, instead of modifying sys.flags in-place.

Thanks everyone for the review. I see the consensus is to replace sys.flags on mutation rather than locking in-place updates — and Victor's PR #151402 implements that. I'll close this PR.