pretty new to Linux and im trying to read in command line arguments in a Linux operating system. I want to be able to execute the commands i give as command line arguments programatically. Here is what I have so far:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int counter;
for(counter = 1; counter < argc; counter++){
pid_t pid = fork();
if(pid < 0)
{
perror("Forking failed");
exit(1);
}
else if(pid == 0)
{
char *args[] = {argv[counter], NULL};
printf("Argument to be passed: %s \n", argv[counter]);
execvp(args[0], args);
perror("Command failed.");
exit(0);
}
printf("Process %s completed successfully.\n", argv[counter]);
}
exit(0);
}
My output on terminal:
darren#darren-VirtualBox:~/Desktop$ ./cmdarguments /home/darren/Desktop/fullpathdoc1 /home/darren/Desktop/fullpathdoc2
Process /home/darren/Desktop/fullpathdoc1 completed successfully.
Process /home/darren/Desktop/fullpathdoc2 completed successfully.
darren#darren-VirtualBox:~/Desktop$ Argument to be passed: /home/darren/Desktop/fullpathdoc2
This is the second program that simply prints this statement.
Argument to be passed: /home/darren/Desktop/fullpathdoc1
This is the first program that simply prints this statement.
I want to be able to print out the process name, and say process completed after each command line argument has been successfully executed. For some reason, my output results in everything seeming to execute backwards, with my process completed messages coming up first as well as reading in the command lines from right to left. Can someone please help with my code and how I can rectify this?
When there are multiple processes, which process get to run first is totally up to your operating system(Linux)'s decision.
Broadly, the parent process -- that's where fork() returns > 0 -- needs to wait for the child process to complete. Bear in mind that the three calls to execvp() result in three, concurrent, processes. So if you don't monitor them, they'll proceed in their own merry way. There is already a discussion of this issue on SO:
how to correctly use fork, exec, wait
Related
The code shown is based on an example using named pipes from some tutorial site
server.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FIFO_FILE "MYFIFO"
int main()
{
int fd;
char readbuf[80];
int read_bytes;
// mknod(FIFO_FILE, S_IFIFO|0640, 0);
mkfifo(FIFO_FILE, 0777);
while(1) {
fd = open(FIFO_FILE, O_RDONLY);
read_bytes = read(fd, readbuf, sizeof(readbuf));
readbuf[read_bytes] = '\0';
printf("Received string: \"%s\". Length is %d\n", readbuf, (int)strlen(readbuf));
}
return 0;
}
When executing the server in Windows, using Cygwin, then the server enters an undesired loop, repeating the same message. For example, if you write in a shell:
$ ./server
|
then the "server" waits for the client, but when the FIFO is not empty, e.g. writing in a new shell
$ echo "Hello" > MYFIFO
then the server enters an infinite loop, repeating the "Hello"-string
Received string: "Hello". Length is 4
Received string: "Hello". Length is 4
...
Furthermore, new strings written to the fifo doesn't seem to be read by the server. However, in Linux the behaviour is quite different. In Linux, the server prints the string and waits for new data to appear on the fifo. What is the reason for this discrepancy ?
You need to fix your code to remove at least 3 bugs:
You're not doing a close(fd) so you will get a file descriptor leak and eventually be unable to open() new files.
You're not checking the value of fd (if it returns -1 then there was an error).
You're not checking the value of read (if it returns -1 then there was an error)... and your readbuf[read_bytes] = '\0'; will not be doing what you expect as a result.
When you get an error then errno will tell you what went wrong.
These bugs probably explain why you keep getting Hello output (especially the readbuf[read_bytes] problem).
A simple test program, I expect it will "clone" to fork a child process, and each process can execute till its end
#include<stdio.h>
#include<sched.h>
#include<unistd.h>
#include<sys/types.h>
#include<errno.h>
int f(void*arg)
{
pid_t pid=getpid();
printf("child pid=%d\n",pid);
}
char buf[1024];
int main()
{
printf("before clone\n");
int pid=clone(f,buf,CLONE_VM|CLONE_VFORK,NULL);
if(pid==-1){
printf("%d\n",errno);
return 1;
}
waitpid(pid,NULL,0);
printf("after clone\n");
printf("father pid=%d\n",getpid());
return 0;
}
Ru it:
$g++ testClone.cpp && ./a.out
before clone
It didn't print what I expected. Seems after "clone" the program is in unknown state and then quit. I tried gdb and it prints:
Breakpoint 1, main () at testClone.cpp:15
(gdb) n-
before clone
(gdb) n-
waiting for new child: No child processes.
(gdb) n-
Single stepping until exit from function clone#plt,-
which has no line number information.
If I remove the line of "waitpid", then gdb prints another kind of weird information.
(gdb) n-
before clone
(gdb) n-
Detaching after fork from child process 26709.
warning: Unexpected waitpid result 000000 when waiting for vfork-done
Cannot remove breakpoints because program is no longer writable.
It might be running in another process.
Further execution is probably impossible.
0x00007fb18a446bf1 in clone () from /lib64/libc.so.6
ptrace: No such process.
Where did I get wrong in my program?
You should never call clone in a user-level program -- there are way too many restrictions on what you are allowed to do in the cloned process.
In particular, calling any libc function (such as printf) is a complete no-no (because libc doesn't know that your clone exists, and have not performed any setup for it).
As K. A. Buhr points out, you also pass too small a stack, and the wrong end of it. Your stack is also not properly aligned.
In short, even though K. A. Buhr's modification appears to work, it doesn't really.
TL;DR: clone, just don't use it.
The second argument to clone is a pointer to the child's stack. As per the manual page for clone(2):
Stacks grow downward on all processors that run Linux (except the HP PA processors), so child_stack usually points to the topmost address of the memory space set up for the child stack.
Also, 1024 bytes is a paltry amount for a stack. The following modified version of your program appears to run correctly:
// #define _GNU_SOURCE // may be needed if compiled as C instead of C++
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sched.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <errno.h>
int f(void*arg)
{
pid_t pid=getpid();
printf("child pid=%d\n",pid);
return 0;
}
char buf[1024*1024]; // *** allocate more stack ***
int main()
{
printf("before clone\n");
int pid=clone(f,buf+sizeof(buf),CLONE_VM|CLONE_VFORK,NULL);
// *** in previous line: pointer is to *end* of stack ***
if(pid==-1){
printf("%d\n",errno);
return 1;
}
waitpid(pid,NULL,0);
printf("after clone\n");
printf("father pid=%d\n",getpid());
return 0;
}
Also, #Employed Russian is right -- you probably shouldn't use clone except if you're trying to have some fun. Either fork or vfork are more sensible interfaces to clone whenever they meet your needs.
I need to pass 1 value between programs. In my case, I run (VERY SIMPLE) program within another by calling system("SimpleProgram").
Is there a way how to pass 1 value (integer) returned by SimpleProgram. Neither "return 123" nor "exit(123)" doesnt work.
Is there any elegant way to pass such value? (I dont want to write and read an external file)
EDIT:
The language is C++, the programming is done on BeagleBone with Angstrom distribution.
retCode = system("cd /home/martin/uart/temp/xml_parser && ./xmldom");
Note what the man page for system(3) says about the return code:
The value returned is -1 on error (e.g. fork(2) failed), and the
return status of the command otherwise.
This latter return status is in the format specified in wait(2). Thus, the exit code of the command will
be WEXITSTATUS(status).
So you're almost there. If you have a simple program that returns 123, as you stated:
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
return 123;
}
then you can run it with system(3) and see its return code by using WEXITSTATUS():
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int rc = system(argv[1]);
cout << WEXITSTATUS(rc) << '\n';
}
Naming the first program return123 and the second system:
$ ./system ./return123
123
If you leave off the WEXITSTATUS() and just print rc directly, you will get an incorrect value.
The standard way to do this is with UNIX pipes.
If it's just a hack, you might as well just use the binary return value, but in either case, you'd have to use execve() instead of system().
I've wanted to test if with multiply processes I'm able to use more than 4GB of ram on 32bit O.S (mine: Ubuntu with 1GB ram).
So I've written a small program that mallocs slightly less then 1GB, and do some action on that array, and ran 5 instances of this program vie forks.
The thing is, that I suspect that O.S killed 4 of them, and only one survived and displayed it's "PID: I've finished").
(I've tried it with small arrays and got 5 printing, also when I look at the running processes with TOP, I see only one instance..)
The weird thing is this - I've received return code 0 (success?) in ALL of the instances, including the ones that were allegedly killed by O.S.
I didn't get any massage stating that processes were killed.
Is this return code normal for this situation?
(If so, it reduces my trust in 'return codes'...)
thanks.
Edit: some of the answers suggested possible errors in the small program, so here it is. the larger program that forks and saves return codes is larger, and I have trouble uploading it here, but I think (and hope) it's fine.
Also I've noticed that if instead of running it with my forking program, I run it with terminal using './a.out & ./a.out & ./a.out & ./a.out &' (when ./a.out is the binary of the small program attached)
I do see some 'Killed' messages.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define SMALL_SIZE 10000
#define BIG_SIZE 1000000000
#define SIZE BIG_SIZE
#define REAPETS 1
int
main()
{
pid_t my_pid = getpid();
char * x = malloc(SIZE*sizeof(char));
if (x == NULL)
{
printf("Malloc failed!");
return(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
int x2=0;
for(x2=0;x2<REAPETS;++x2)
{
int y;
for(y=0;y<SIZE;++y)
x[y] = (y+my_pid)%256;
}
printf("%d: I'm over.\n",my_pid);
return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
Well, if your process is unable to malloc() the 1GB of memory, the OS will not kill the process. All that happens is that malloc() returns NULL. So depending on how you wrote your code, it's possible that the process could return 0 anyway - if you wanted it to return an error code when a memory allocation fails (which is generally good practice), you'd have to program that behavior into it.
What signal was used to kill the processes?
Exit codes between 0 and 127, inclusive, can be used freely, and codes above 128 indicate that the process was terminated by a signal, where the exit code is
128 + the number of the signal used
A process' return status (as returned by wait, waitpid and system) contains more or less the following:
Exit code, only applies if process terminated normally
whether normal/abnormal termination occured
Termination signal, only applies if process was terminated by a signal
The exit code is utterly meaningless if your process was killed by the OOM killer (which will apparently send you a SIGKILL signal)
for more information, see the man page for the wait command.
This code shows how to get the termination status of a child:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
int
main (void)
{
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == -1)
{
perror("fork()");
}
/* parent */
else if (pid > 0)
{
int status;
printf("Child has pid %ld\n", (long)pid);
if (wait(&status) == -1)
{
perror("wait()");
}
else
{
/* did the child terminate normally? */
if(WIFEXITED(status))
{
printf("%ld exited with return code %d\n",
(long)pid, WEXITSTATUS(status));
}
/* was the child terminated by a signal? */
else if (WIFSIGNALED(status))
{
printf("%ld terminated because it didn't catch signal number %d\n",
(long)pid, WTERMSIG(status));
}
}
}
/* child */
else
{
sleep(10);
exit(0);
}
return 0;
}
Have you checked the return value from fork()? There's a good chance that if fork() can't allocate enough memory for the new process' address space, then it will return an error (-1). A typical way to call fork() is:
pid_t pid;
switch(pid = fork())
{
case 0:
// I'm the child process
break;
case -1:
// Error -- check errno
fprintf(stderr, "fork: %s\n", strerror(errno));
break;
default:
// I'm the parent process
}
Exit code is only "valid" when WIFEXITED macro evaluates to true. See man waitpid(2).
You can use WIFSIGNALED macro to see if your program has been signaled.
I have several independent executable Perl, PHP CLI scripts and C++ programs for which I need to develop an exit error code strategy. These programs are called by other programs using a wrapper class I created to use exec() in PHP. So, I will be able to get an error code back. Based on that error code, the calling script will need to do something.
I have done a little bit of research and it seems like anything in the 1-254 (or maybe just 1-127) range could be fair game to user-defined error codes.
I was just wondering how other people have approached error handling in this situation.
The only convention is that you return 0 for success, and something other than zero for an error. Most well-known unix programs document the various return codes that they can return, and so should you. It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to make a common list for all possible error codes that any arbitrary program could return, or else you end up with tens of thousands of them like some other OS's, and even then, it doesn't always cover the specific type of error you want to return.
So just be consistent, and be sure to document whatever scheme you decide to use.
1-127 is the available range. Anything over 127 is supposed to be "abnormal" exit - terminated by a signal.
While you're at it, consider using stdout rather than exit code. Exit code is by tradition used to indicate success, failure, and may be one other state. Rather than using exit code, try using stdout the way expr and wc use it. You can then use backtick or something similar in the caller to extract the result.
the unix manifesto states -
Exit as soon and as loud as possible on error
or something like that
Don't try to encode too much meaning into the exit value: detailed statuses and error reports should go to stdout / stderr as Arkadiy suggests.
However, I have found it very useful to represent just a handful of states in the exit values, using binary digits to encode them. For example, suppose you have the following contrived meanings:
0000 : 0 (no error)
0001 : 1 (error)
0010 : 2 (I/O error)
0100 : 4 (user input error)
1000 : 8 (permission error)
Then, a user input error would have a return value of 5 (4 + 1), while a log file not having write permission might have a return value of 11 (8 + 2 + 1). As the different meanings are independently encoded in the return value, you can easily see what's happened by checking which bits are set.
As a special case, to see if there was an error you can AND the return code with 1.
By doing this, you can encode a couple of different things in the return code, in a clear and simple way. I use this only to make simple decisions such as "should the process be restarted", "do the return value and relevant logs need to be sent to an admin", that sort of thing. Any detailed diagnostic information should go to logs or to stdout / stderr.
The normal exit statuses run from 0 to 255 (see Exit codes bigger than 255 posssible for a discussion of why). Normally, status 0 indicates success; anything else is an implementation-defined error. I do know of a program that reports the state of a DBMS server via the exit status; that is a special case of implementation-defined exit statuses. Note that you get to define the implementation of the statuses of your programs.
I couldn't fit this into 300 characters; otherwise it would have been a comment to #Arkadiy's answer.
Arkadiy is right that in one part of the exit status word, values other than zero indicate the signal that terminated the process and the 8th bit normally indicates a core dump, but that section of the exit status is different from the main 0..255 status. However, the shell (whichever shell it is) is presented with a problem when a process dies as a result of a signal. There is 16 bits of data to be presented in an 8-bit value, which is always tricky. What the shells seem to do is to take the signal number and add 128 to it. So, if a process dies as a result of an interrupt (signal number 2, SIGINT), the shell reports the exit status as 130. However, the kernel reported the status as 0x0002; the shell has modified what the kernel reports.
The following C code demonstrates this. There are two programs
suicide which kills itself using a signal of your choosing (interrupt by default).
exitstatus which runs a command (such as suicide) and reports the kernel exit status.
Here's suicide.c:
/*
#(#)File: $RCSfile: suicide.c,v $
#(#)Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
#(#)Last changed: $Date: 2008/12/28 03:45:18 $
#(#)Purpose: Commit suicide using kill()
#(#)Author: J Leffler
#(#)Copyright: (C) JLSS 2008
#(#)Product: :PRODUCT:
*/
/*TABSTOP=4*/
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
#else
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500
#endif /* __STDC_VERSION__ */
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include "stderr.h"
static const char usestr[] = "[-V][-s signal]";
#ifndef lint
/* Prevent over-aggressive optimizers from eliminating ID string */
extern const char jlss_id_suicide_c[];
const char jlss_id_suicide_c[] = "#(#)$Id: suicide.c,v 1.2 2008/12/28 03:45:18 jleffler Exp $";
#endif /* lint */
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int signum = SIGINT;
int opt;
char *end;
err_setarg0(argv[0]);
while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "Vs:")) != -1)
{
switch (opt)
{
case 's':
signum = strtol(optarg, &end, 0);
if (*end != '\0' || signum <= 0)
err_error("invalid signal number %s\n", optarg);
break;
case 'V':
err_version("SUICIDE", &"#(#)$Revision: 1.2 $ ($Date: 2008/12/28 03:45:18 $)"[4]);
break;
default:
err_usage(usestr);
break;
}
}
if (optind != argc)
err_usage(usestr);
kill(getpid(), signum);
return(0);
}
And here's exitstatus.c:
/*
#(#)File: $RCSfile: exitstatus.c,v $
#(#)Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
#(#)Last changed: $Date: 2008/12/28 03:45:18 $
#(#)Purpose: Run command and report 16-bit exit status
#(#)Author: J Leffler
#(#)Copyright: (C) JLSS 2008
#(#)Product: :PRODUCT:
*/
/*TABSTOP=4*/
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
#else
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500
#endif /* __STDC_VERSION__ */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include "stderr.h"
#ifndef lint
/* Prevent over-aggressive optimizers from eliminating ID string */
extern const char jlss_id_exitstatus_c[];
const char jlss_id_exitstatus_c[] = "#(#)$Id: exitstatus.c,v 1.2 2008/12/28 03:45:18 jleffler Exp $";
#endif /* lint */
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
pid_t pid;
err_setarg0(argv[0]);
if (argc < 2)
err_usage("cmd [args...]");
if ((pid = fork()) < 0)
err_syserr("fork() failed: ");
else if (pid == 0)
{
/* Child */
execvp(argv[1], &argv[1]);
return(1);
}
else
{
pid_t corpse;
int status;
corpse = waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
if (corpse != pid)
err_syserr("waitpid() failed: ");
printf("0x%04X\n", status);
}
return(0);
}
The missing code, stderr.c and stderr.h, can easily be found in essentially any of my published programs. If you need it urgently, get it from the program SQLCMD at the IIUG Software Archive; alternatively, contact me by email (see my profile).