What's the intention of waitpid - linux

The sample code below is from linux man page waitpid function. Can the last else if be replaced with else? When I write code, I would write like:if, else if, and end with else. So I think it is strange in the sample code.
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
pid_t cpid, w;
int status;
cpid = fork();
if (cpid == -1) {
perror("fork");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (cpid == 0) { /* Code executed by child */
printf("Child PID is %ld\n", (long) getpid());
if (argc == 1)
pause(); /* Wait for signals */
_exit(atoi(argv[1]));
} else { /* Code executed by parent */
do {
w = waitpid(cpid, &status, WUNTRACED | WCONTINUED);
if (w == -1) {
perror("waitpid");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
printf("exited, status=%d\n", WEXITSTATUS(status));
} else if (WIFSIGNALED(status)) {
printf("killed by signal %d\n", WTERMSIG(status));
} else if (WIFSTOPPED(status)) {
printf("stopped by signal %d\n", WSTOPSIG(status));
} else if (WIFCONTINUED(status)) { /* can this be
*replaced with else ???
*/
printf("continued\n");
}
} while (!WIFEXITED(status) && !WIFSIGNALED(status));
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
}

Here's the question I think you are asking:
Is it possible for waitpid to return a status such that none of
WIFEXITED(status), WIFSIGNALED(status), WIFSTOPPED(status), or
WIFCONTINUED(status) returns nonzero?
The answer is almost certainly "no", and the Linux man page implies as much without (unfortunately) explicitly saying it.
The UNIX standard says more here, and specifically does guarantee that one of those macros will return nonzero in certain cases. But Linux is not (necessarily) compliant to this standard.
But I think the best solution in code would be to have an else clause after those four options, and (depending on your application) take this to mean that the status is unknown. This could happen even if it's not the case now - maybe in some future version of Linux there is another kind of exit condition not covered here, and you don't want your code to crash in such a case.
The standard does seem to have evolved over time. For example, earlier versions didn't have the WIFCONTINUED case, and I also found some references online to a WIFCORED in some other systems. So it would be good to make your code flexible if you're concerned about it.

Related

Linux Pipes and Redirecting output

I'm trying to write a linux program using pipes, but so far I've encountered a major problem.
When I try to run this, it seems it either duplicates the answers, or doesnt give me an answer at all.
So far I'm trying to use a pipe, the parent gets a string from the keyboard, and compares it to see if matches any other commands, momentarily its only the "login" command.
But it doesnt work as it doesnt show me a fail or success message. I've been fiddeling with the code, but sometimes it's repeating the answer several time, like it's executing the child several times. Can someone explain me why its happening?
Thx
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <string.h>
int fd[2], nbytes;
pid_t childpid;
char input[12];
char readbuffer[80];
int log_variable;
int pid;
int compare(char str1[], char str2[]){
if(strlen(str1) == strlen(str2))
{int i;
for( i=0; i<strlen(str1); i++){
if(str1[i] != str2[i])
return 0;
return 1;
}
}
}
int test(char argument[]){//test function
pipe(fd);
switch(childpid=fork()){
case -1:
perror("fork -1\n");
exit(1);
case 0://child
close (fd[1]);
int nbytes = read(fd[0], readbuffer, sizeof(readbuffer));
if(compare(readbuffer, "login") == 1){
return 1;
}
else if(compare(readbuffer, "login") == 0){
return 0;
}
exit(1);
default:
//parent
close(fd[0]);
write(fd[1], argument, sizeof(argument));
while(wait(NULL)!=-1);
}
}
main(){
while(1){
printf("Insert command: \n");
scanf("%s", input);
logs=(test(input));
if(logs == 1) {printf("success\n"); break;}
else if(logs == 0) {printf("fail\n"); continue;}
}
return 0;
}
a couple of problems for your code with a quick look:
compare function doesn't return value if length not equal.
test() function may get called twice in one process, which means fork more times.
the test() internally for the child will return to the main, also parent will return to main ... get things more complicated here (the child may fork a third time ...)
Use "strace -F" can give you a much better view what things happened behind.

Can not get proper response from select() using writefds

Parent receives SIGPIPE sending chars to aborted child process through FIFO pipe.
I am trying to avoid this, using select() function. In the attached sample code,
select() retruns OK even after the child at the other end of pipe having been terminated.
Tested in
RedHat EL5 (Linux 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5)
GNU C Library stable release version 2.5
Any help appreciated. Thnak you.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static void sigpipe_fct();
main()
{
struct stat st;
int i, fd_out, fd_in, child;
char buf[1024];
#define p_out "/tmp/pout"
signal(SIGPIPE, sigpipe_fct);
if (stat(p_out, &st) != 0) {
mknod(p_out, S_IFIFO, 0);
chmod(p_out, 0666);
}
/* start receiving process */
if ((child = fork()) == 0) {
if ((fd_in = open(p_out, O_RDONLY)) < 0) {
perror(p_out);
exit(1);
}
while(1) {
i = read(fd_in, buf, sizeof(buf));
fprintf(stderr, "child %d read %.*s\n", getpid(), i, buf);
lseek(fd_in, 0, 0);
}
}
else {
fprintf(stderr,
"reading from %s - exec \"kill -9 %d\" to test\n", p_out, child);
if ((fd_out = open(p_out, O_WRONLY + O_NDELAY)) < 0) { /* output */
perror(p_out);
exit(1);
}
while(1) {
if (SelectChkWrite(fd_out) == fd_out) {
fprintf(stderr, "SelectChkWrite() success write abc\n");
write(fd_out, "abc", 3);
}
else
fprintf(stderr, "SelectChkWrite() failed\n");
sleep(3);
}
}
}
static void sigpipe_fct()
{
fprintf(stderr, "SIGPIPE received\n");
exit(-1);
}
SelectChkWrite(ch)
int ch;
{
#include <sys/select.h>
fd_set writefds;
int i;
FD_ZERO(&writefds);
FD_SET (ch, &writefds);
i = select(ch + 1, NULL, &writefds, NULL, NULL);
if (i == -1)
return(-1);
else if (FD_ISSET(ch, &writefds))
return(ch);
else
return(-1);
}
From the Linux select(3) man page:
A descriptor shall be considered ready for writing when a call to an
output function with O_NONBLOCK clear would not block, whether or not
the function would transfer data successfully.
When the pipe is closed, it won't block, so it is considered "ready" by select.
BTW, having #include <sys/select.h> inside your SelectChkWrite() function is extremely bad form.
Although select() and poll() are both in the POSIX standard, select() is much older and more limited than poll(). In general, I recommend people use poll() by default and only use select() if they have a good reason. (See here for one example.)

OS-X Linux intercept process call

how do I intercept calls made from other process which I have called from my process. (say - I call make and I would like to intercept and modify call to gcc from make).
Here is a small example with ptrace:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/ptrace.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/user.h>
#include <sys/prctl.h>
const char *sys_call_name(long num);
int main()
{
pid_t pid = fork();
struct user_regs_struct regs;
if (!pid) {
/* child */
while (1) { printf("C\n"); sleep(1); }
}
else { /* parent */
int status = 0;
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, NULL, 0);
ptrace(PTRACE_SETOPTIONS, pid, NULL, PTRACE_SYSCALL) ;
while (1) {
printf("waiting\n");
pid = wait(&status);
/* child gone */
//if (WIFEXITED(status)) { break; }
ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGS, pid, 0, &regs);
/* regs.orig_eax is the system call number */
printf("A system call: %d : %s\n", regs.orig_eax, sys_call_name(regs.orig_eax));
/* let child continue */
ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, pid, NULL, 0);
}
}
return 0;
}
const char *sys_call_name(long num) {
switch(num) {
case 4: return "write";
case 162: return "nanosleep";
case 165: return "getresuid";
case 174: return "rt_sigaction";
case 175: return "rt_sigprocmask";
default: return "unknown";
}
}
It sound from your question that you are looking for Makefile help, specifically you are looking for doing something for all call to the c-compiler.
make allows for any command to be redefined locally -- all you have to do is redefine the macro in make -- for gcc you would simply redefine the CC macros.
You could do that from the command like, like
make CC=echo
which would substitute all call from gcc to echo (not very useful, but you get the idea).
Or you can do it in the Makefile by adding a line like
CC=echo
testprogram: testprogram.o
and when you do make testprogram the make will echo something rather than invoking gcc
You don't easily. The facility in question is the ptrace function, not for the faint of heart.

How to determine if code is running in signal-handler context?

I just found out that someone is calling - from a signal handler - a definitely not async-signal-safe function that I wrote.
So, now I'm curious: how to circumvent this situation from happening again? I'd like to be able to easily determine if my code is running in signal handler context (language is C, but wouldn't the solution apply to any language?):
int myfunc( void ) {
if( in_signal_handler_context() ) { return(-1) }
// rest of function goes here
return( 0 );
}
This is under Linux.
Hope this isn't an easy answer, or else I'll feel like an idiot.
Apparently, newer Linux/x86 (probably since some 2.6.x kernel) calls signal handlers from the vdso. You could use this fact to inflict the following horrible hack upon the unsuspecting world:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
uintmax_t vdso_start = 0;
uintmax_t vdso_end = 0; /* actually, next byte */
int check_stack_for_vdso(uint32_t *esp, size_t len)
{
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++, esp++)
if (*esp >= vdso_start && *esp < vdso_end)
return 1;
return 0;
}
void handler(int signo)
{
uint32_t *esp;
__asm__ __volatile__ ("mov %%esp, %0" : "=r"(esp));
/* XXX only for demonstration, don't call printf from a signal handler */
printf("handler: check_stack_for_vdso() = %d\n", check_stack_for_vdso(esp, 20));
}
void parse_maps()
{
FILE *maps;
char buf[256];
char path[7];
uintmax_t start, end, offset, inode;
char r, w, x, p;
unsigned major, minor;
maps = fopen("/proc/self/maps", "rt");
if (maps == NULL)
return;
while (!feof(maps) && !ferror(maps)) {
if (fgets(buf, 256, maps) != NULL) {
if (sscanf(buf, "%jx-%jx %c%c%c%c %jx %u:%u %ju %6s",
&start, &end, &r, &w, &x, &p, &offset,
&major, &minor, &inode, path) == 11) {
if (!strcmp(path, "[vdso]")) {
vdso_start = start;
vdso_end = end;
break;
}
}
}
}
fclose(maps);
printf("[vdso] at %jx-%jx\n", vdso_start, vdso_end);
}
int main()
{
struct sigaction sa;
uint32_t *esp;
parse_maps();
memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(struct sigaction));
sa.sa_handler = handler;
sa.sa_flags = SA_RESTART;
if (sigaction(SIGUSR1, &sa, NULL) < 0) {
perror("sigaction");
exit(1);
}
__asm__ __volatile__ ("mov %%esp, %0" : "=r"(esp));
printf("before kill: check_stack_for_vdso() = %d\n", check_stack_for_vdso(esp, 20));
kill(getpid(), SIGUSR1);
__asm__ __volatile__ ("mov %%esp, %0" : "=r"(esp));
printf("after kill: check_stack_for_vdso() = %d\n", check_stack_for_vdso(esp, 20));
return 0;
}
SCNR.
If we can assume your application doesn't manually block signals using sigprocmask() or pthread_sigmask(), then this is pretty simple: get your current thread ID (tid). Open /proc/tid/status and get the values for SigBlk and SigCgt. AND those two values. If the result of that AND is non-zero, then that thread is currently running from inside a signal handler. I've tested this myself and it works.
There are two proper ways to deal with this:
Have your co-workers stop doing the wrong thing. Good luck pulling this off with the boss, though...
Make your function re-entrant and async-safe. If necessary, provide a function with a different signature (e.g. using the widely-used *_r naming convention) with the additional arguments that are necessary for state preservation.
As for the non-proper way to do this, on Linux with GNU libc you can use backtrace() and friends to go through the caller list of your function. It's not easy to get right, safe or portable, but it might do for a while:
/*
* *** Warning ***
*
* Black, fragile and unportable magic ahead
*
* Do not use this, lest the daemons of hell be unleashed upon you
*/
int in_signal_handler_context() {
int i, n;
void *bt[1000];
char **bts = NULL;
n = backtrace(bt, 1000);
bts = backtrace_symbols(bt, n);
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
printf("%i - %s\n", i, bts[i]);
/* Have a look at the caller chain */
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
/* Far more checks are needed here to avoid misfires */
if (strstr(bts[i], "(__libc_start_main+") != NULL)
return 0;
if (strstr(bts[i], "libc.so.6(+") != NULL)
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
void unsafe() {
if (in_signal_handler_context())
printf("John, you know you are an idiot, right?\n");
}
In my opinion, it might just be better to quit rather than be forced to write code like this.
You could work out something using sigaltstack. Set up an alternative signal stack, get the stack pointer in some async-safe way, if within the alternative stack go on, otherwise abort().
I guess you need to do the following. This is a complex solution, which combines the best practices not only from coding, but from software engineering as well!
Persuade your boss that naming convention on signal handlers is a good thing. Propose, for example, a Hungarian notation, and tell that it was used in Microsoft with great success.
So, all signal handlers will start with sighnd, like sighndInterrupt.
Your function that detects signal handling context would do the following:
Get the backtrace().
Look if any of the functions in it begin with sighnd.... If it does, then congratulations, you're inside a signal handler!
Otherwise, you're not.
Try to avoid working with Jimmy in the same company. "There can be only one", you know.
for code optimized at -O2 or better (istr) have found need to add -fno-omit-frame-pointer
else gcc will optimize out the stack context information

Multithreading Semaphore

#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
void *thread_function(void *arg);
sem_t bin_sem;
#define WORK_SIZE 1024
char work_area[WORK_SIZE];
int main() {
int res;
pthread_t a_thread;
void *thread_result;
res = sem_init(&bin_sem, 0, 0);
if (res != 0) {
perror(“Semaphore initialization failed”);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
res = pthread_create(&a_thread, NULL, thread_function, NULL);
if (res != 0) {
perror(“Thread creation failed”);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
printf(“Input some text. Enter ‘end’ to finish\n”);
while(strncmp(“end”, work_area, 3) != 0) {
fgets(work_area, WORK_SIZE, stdin);
sem_post(&bin_sem);
}
printf(“\nWaiting for thread to finish...\n”);
res = pthread_join(a_thread, &thread_result);
if (res != 0) {
perror(“Thread join failed”);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
printf(“Thread joined\n”);
sem_destroy(&bin_sem);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
void *thread_function(void *arg) {
sem_wait(&bin_sem);
while(strncmp(“end”, work_area, 3) != 0) {
printf(“You input %d characters\n”, strlen(work_area) -1);
sem_wait(&bin_sem);}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
In the program above, when the semaphore is released using sem_post(), is it
possible that the fgets and the counting function in thread_function execute
simultaneously .And I think this program fails in allowing the second thread
to count the characters before the main thread reads the keyboard again.
Is that right?
The second thread will only read characters after sem_wait has returned, signaling that a sem_post has been called somewhere, so I think that is fine.
As for fgets and the counting function, those two could be running simultaneously.
I would recommend a mutex lock on the work_area variable in this case, because if the user is editing the variable in one thread while it is being read in another thread, problems will occur.
You can either use a mutex or you can use a semaphore and set the initial count on it to 1.
If you implement a mutex or use a semaphore like that though, make sure to put the mutex_lock after sema_wait, or else a deadlock may occur.
In this example you want to have a mutex around the read & writes of the shared memory.
I know this is an example, but the following code:
fgets(work_area, WORK_SIZE, stdin);
Should really be:
fgets(work_area, sizeof(work_area), stdin);
If you change the size of work_area in the future (to some other constant, etc), it's quite likely that changing this second WORK_SIZE could be missed.

Resources