On Unix-like operating systems, one should never call a file core because it might be overwritten by a core dump, so that name is de facto reserved for use by the operating system.
But what about with an extension, like core.c? It seems to me this should be perfectly okay; core and core.c are two distinct names.
Is the above correct, and names like core.foo are okay? Or am I missing anything?
On Unix-like operating systems,
Ie. on a system conforming to the single UNIX Specification (or just to POSIX). Or on a system belonging to the unix family.
one should never call a file core because it might be overwritten by a core dump, so that name is de facto reserved for use by the operating system.
No. I do not think there is a specification that specifies that core dumps are going into a file named "core". It's all "implementation defined", from posix:
3.117 Core File
A file of unspecified format that may be generated when a process terminates abnormally.
If coredump is created, where is it created, how and what the contents are, it's all up to implementation. [Freebsd creates a file named executable_name.core for ages. So not "on unix-like operating systems". Your sentence could be made valid by changing the beginning to:
On a linux system with kernel version lower then 2.6 or 2.4.21 one should never call a file "core", because...
Kernel 2.6 and 2.4.21 is more then 15 years old. Newer kernels have /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern that allow specifying the filename and location and even a process to run on a coredump. So if you are working with such archaic kernel version lower then 2.6 or 2.4.21 (or the content of /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern is naively set to core), then yes, you should be careful when creating a file named "core".
In today's world, that behavior doesn't matter at all, on most linux distributions systemd-coredump takes care of that and creates coredumps in /var/lib/systemd/coredump.
But what about with an extension, like core.c?
It's ok - core and core.c are different filenames. Dot is not a special character, it's just a character like anything else, core.c differs from core as much as core12 or coreAB does...
Is the above correct,
Yes.
and names like core.foo are okay?
Are okay.
Or am I missing anything?
No idea, but if you are, I surely hope you will find it.
Related
I am new to programmming in rtem and was wondering how are the two, rtems and linux, are different in terms of programming. I understand rtems is an real time operating system but if you were to make a hello world app, wouldn’t the program be the same?
Note that your question is quite generic. There are a lot of detail differences.
One of the biggest is the format of your binary: Most RTEMS binaries are statically linked together. You only have one big binary containing your system and application. There is some dynamic loading supported but it's not the case used by most users.
As already mentioned my n.m. in the comments RTEMS has a lot of the POSIX API (at least the embedded sub set). So you can use a lot of the same API like you do on Linux.
A big differences is that RTEMS has a global address space (on most targets). So you don't have a separation between tasks. That makes pointer errors a bit harder to debug.
Also a difference: Most embedded systems are targeted for long running applications. In such applications (regardless whether you are on Linux or on RTEMS or on any other system) you should be careful to clean up your stuff (close files, free memory, ...). In Linux (or other desktop class systems) you have processes and the kernel cleans up all resources after your process exits. Although you can create threads in RTEMS no one cleans up after a thread exits.
The POSIX attribute defaults for threads are not specified in the standard and may vary between RTEMS and Linux.
Given that in Linux utimes(2) is a system call and futimes(3) is a library function, I would think that futimes is implemented in terms of utimes. However, utimes takes a pathname, whereas futimes takes a file descriptor.
Since, it is "not possible" to determine a pathname from the file descriptor or i-node number I wonder how this can be done? Does the "real" system call always work on i-node numbers?
First, you likely wrongly mentioned Posix because the latter doesn't differ system calls and library functions. The putting of futimes() to library calls is Linux specific. In glibc (file sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/futimes.c), there is the comment:
/* Change the access time of the file associated with FD to TVP[0] and
the modification time of FILE to TVP[1].
Starting with 2.6.22 the Linux kernel has the utimensat syscall which
can be used to implement futimes. Earlier kernels have no futimes()
syscall so we use the /proc filesystem. */
So, this is done using utimensat() with the specified descriptor as the reference one as for all *at() calls. Previously, this worked using utimes() for the path /proc/${pid}/fd/${fd} (too cumbersome and only if /proc is mounted). This is a reply to your second question: despite it isn't generally possible to detect a file name from its descriptor, the file still could be accessed separately. (BTW, the initial path used to open the file is sometimes stored; see /proc/$pid/{cwd,exe} for a Linux process.)
To compare with, FreeBSD provides explicit futimes() and futimesat() syscalls (but I wonder why the latter isn't named "utimesat").
The Wikipedia page on Core dump says
In Unix-like systems, core dumps generally use the standard executable
image-format:
a.out in older versions of Unix,
ELF in modern Linux, System V, Solaris, and BSD systems,
Mach-O in OS X, etc.
Does this mean a core dump is executable by itself? If not, why not?
Edit: Since #WumpusQ.Wumbley mentions a coredump_filter in a comment, perhaps the above question should be: can a core dump be produced such that it is executable by itself?
In older unix variants it was the default to include the text as well as data in the core dump but it was also given in the a.out format and not ELF. Today's default behavior (in Linux for sure, not 100% sure about BSD variants, Solaris etc.) is to have the core dump in ELF format without the text sections but that behavior can be changed.
However, a core dump cannot be executed directly in any case without some help. The reason for that is that there are two things missing from a simple core file. One is the entry point, the other is code to restore the CPU state to the state at or just before the dump occurred (by default also the text sections are missing).
In AIX there used to be a utility called undump but I have no idea what happened to it. It doesn't exist in any standard Linux distribution I know of. As mentioned above (#WumpusQ) there's also an attempt at a similar project for Linux mentioned in above comments, however this project is not complete and doesn't restore the CPU state to the original state. It is, however, still good enough in some specific debugging cases.
It is also worth mentioning that there exist other ELF formatted files that cannot be executes as well which are not core files. Such as object files (compiler output) and .so (shared object) files. Those require a linking stage before being run to resolve external addresses.
I emailed this question the creator of the undump utility for his expertise, and got the following reply:
As mentioned in some of the answers there, it is possible to include
the code sections by setting the coredump_filter, but it's not the
default for Linux (and I'm not entirely sure about BSD variants and
Solaris). If the various code sections are saved in the original
core-dump, there is really nothing missing in order to create the new
executable. It does, however, require some changes in the original
core file (such as including an entry point and pointing that entry
point to code that will restore CPU registers). If the core file is
modified in this way it will become an executable and you'll be able
to run it. Unfortunately, though, some of the states are not going to
be saved so the new executable will not be able to run directly. Open
files, sockets, pips, etc are not going to be open and may even point
to other FDs (which could cause all sorts of weird things). However,
it will most probably be enough for most debugging tasks such running
small functions from gdb (so that you don't get a "not running an
executable" stuff).
As other guys said, I don't think you can execute a core dump file without the original binary.
In case you're interested to debug the binary (and it has debugging symbols included, in other words it is not stripped) then you can run gdb binary core.
Inside gdb you can use bt command (backtrace) to get the stack trace when the application crashed.
I'm currently developing an application which needs a lot of system and process information, some of which is only available through /proc, and I have some general questions about accessing the structures.
The application will be run on Linux (kernel >= 2.6), not on any other Unix-flavored OS. It should have access to any data in /proc, I can't say what is necessary now as the specifications are not clear yet, but the whole /proc directory is relevant to the application.
First of all: Is there a good documentation which covers all the features added / removed from kernel version to kernel version? One thing I'm curious about in particular is the format of the individual files. Can I take that for granted? Does it change among kernel versions?
Hooking up the parsing process based on the kernel wouldn't be a problem at all, it's just that I couldn't find any good docs on what has changed from version to version which could help me catching parsing errors in beforehand.
In addition: Is there a definite list of features that can be activated / deactivated by kernel options (except of course the /proc-feature itself)? I'm looking for a list of files / directories that only exist with the appropriate options being set in the kernel.
As an example of what I'm thinking of, this is a link to the proc manpage (http://linux.die.net/man/5/proc) which includes a lot of good information, e.g. some options include the earliest kernel version they were available at, some include whether a module is necessary to be loaded. This does not describe the output format of all information though, which is something I need if I want to parse it (e.g. if it is consistent throughout all kernel versions or changed at some point).
The second thing I'm wondering about is what happens if the process queried dies while being queried. What is my time interval? For example if I'm going to fetch a list of processes reading all the structures, and parse them one after another, what happens if my process x dies before I get to read it? Even if I check if the directory exists, it could still be gone one application call later.
Last but not least: Is there any major distribution out there that is not mounting proc?
From what I understand, a lot of common tools are based on the /proc interface such as lsmod or free, so I'm guessing that I can expect /proc to exist almost always.
The /proc interfaces are pretty stable (unlike the /sys interfaces), even if nothing is guaranteed. Almost all changes are backwards compatible, at least if they've been around for a few versions. You should
stick to the documented interfaces to be safe. If a file exists, its format may be extended in later versions, but normally in a backwards compatible way, e.g. adding columns to a table. The parts that are most at risk of disappearing are parts concerning hardware susbystems such as ACPI or SCSI, which are migrating to /sys (with a long transition period when both exist).
Most of the information is architecture-independent, except for hardware information (e.g. /proc/cpuinfo has very different fields on different architectures).
The main documentation is Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt in the kernel source. Consider proc(5) to be the overview and proc.txt to be the fine details. The kernel documentation is often incomplete, so don't be surprised if you need to resort to reading the source sometimes.
Most optional parts of /proc are activated by default if the driver whose data it exposes is included in the kernel. The exceptions are mostly related to hardware features that rarely need to be accessed from outside the kernel; if you need to access these features, you're probably already expecting to need to dig deeper. Look through Kconfig files in the kernel source for detailed information.
Process data (or hardware data related to removable hardware or provided by unloadable modules) can disappear under your nose. Most files under /proc can be read atomically, with a single read call with a reasonably-sized buffer; if you perform multiple read calls in sequence, drivers are supposed to guarantee that you get well-formed data. There is no way to guarantee atomicity between reads of separate files; if you're reading information about a process, this process can die at any time, and in principle could even be replaced by another process with the same PID before you're finished.
As it says in the description of /proc, “everyone should say Y here”. All desktop/server Linux systems and most embedded Linux systems must have /proc; a lot of things, including ps and other process management commands, many filesystem and device-related tools, and module loading, require it. The only systems that might be able to dispense with /proc are very small single-purpose embedded systems that support a single hardware configuration and run a fixed set of programs. You can count on its being here.
I'm writing a program that needs to be able to read in the time zone files on Linux. And that means that I need to be able to consistently find them across distros. As far as I know, they are always located in /usr/share/zoneinfo. The question is, are they in fact always located in /usr/share/zoneinfo? Or are there distros which put them elsewhere? And if so, where do they put them?
A quote from tzset(3):
The system timezone directory used depends on the (g)libc version.
Libc4 and libc5 use /usr/lib/zoneinfo,
and, since libc-5.4.6,
when this doesn't work, will try /usr/share/zoneinfo.
Glibc2 will use the environment
variable TZDIR, when that exists. Its
default depends on how it was installed, but normally is
/usr/share/zoneinfo.
Note, however, that nothing prevents some perverse distro from patching libc and placing the files wherever they want.
The public-domain time zone database contains the code and data to handle time zones on Linux.
The public-domain time zone database
contains code and data that represent
the history of local time for many
representative locations around the
globe. It is updated periodically to
reflect changes made by political
bodies to time zone boundaries, UTC
offsets, and daylight-saving rules.
This database (often called tz or
zoneinfo) is used by several
implementations, including the GNU C
Library used in GNU/Linux, FreeBSD,
NetBSD, OpenBSD, Cygwin, DJGPP, AIX,
Mac OS X, OpenVMS, Oracle Database,
Solaris, Tru64, and UnixWare.
That covers a lot of system but I can only agree with Roman that nobody can be prevented from creating a distribution that differs for whatever reasons. The existence and location of a zonezinfo file is not covered by any official standard as far as I know. The standards (e.g. POSIX and XPG4) only establish the API.