I created a proxy server to handle CQL orders from website clients. The proxy listens for incoming connections and each connection is given a thread. The thread loops as long as the socket exists and dies on HUP. You may also stop the proxy, which will stop the threads by sending an event (See eventfd()) to each thread.
By itself, this already allows me to save a good 100ms because the proxy is local and connecting to a local service is much faster than a service on a remote computer... (even if the computer is local.)
However, I send orders and once in a while the proxy sees no incoming data (i.e. it calls read() on the socket which is setup as NONBLOCK and gets -1 in return and errno == EAGAIN.) When that happens, I call poll() to wait for additional data, the HUP, or a hit on the eventfd meaning I have to quit (i.e. 2 fds, the socket and the eventfd).
Somehow, more often than not, when I hit the poll() function call, it adds an extra 40ms to the time it takes for a message to go round trip. Although one would think this only happens on larger messages, it happens when I receive an order, which is less than 100 bytes! So the size should not be the culprit. I also changed the code to make sure I send the entire order from the client to the proxy in one write() and to avoid the poll() if at all possible (i.e. I call read() first, and poll() only if nothing is available.)
Note that I have no timeout in this case because there is nothing to check other than the incoming orders and the eventfd. So I would imagine that the timeout won't be a problem.
The code base is really big. But the client/server comes down to something like this (the sizes in original are fully dynamic):
// Client
...
connect(socket);
...
write(socket, order, sizeof(order));
read(socket, result, sizeof(result));
// repeat for other orders, as required by client...
// server
...
socket = accept(); // happens for each client
...
pthread_create(runner);
...
// server thread (runner)
...
for(;;)
{
int r(0);
for(;;)
{
r += read(socket, order, sizeof(order));
if(r >= sizeof(order))
{
break;
}
// wait for more data is not enough received yet
poll(..."socket" + "eventfd"...); // <-- this will often take 40ms
if(eventfd_happened)
{
// quit thread
return;
}
}
...
[work on order]
...
write(socket, result, sizeof(result));
}
Note 1: I see the problem when I have a single client. So having multiple clients does not in itself cause the problem either.
Note 2: The client really uses BIO_connect(), BIO_read() and BIO_write() [from OpenSSL], but I doubt that would be a problem. I do not use any kind of encryption.
I don't see why you're using non-blocking I/O given you have a dedicated thread per socket. Just block in read(). Use SO_RCVTIMEO if you need an overall read timeout.
Related
I was following a tutorial on youtube on building a chat program using winsock and c++. Unfortunately the tutorial never bothered to consider race conditions, and this causes many problems.
The tutorial had us open a new thread every time a new client connected to the chat server, which would handle receiving and processing data from that individual client.
void Server::ClientHandlerThread(int ID) //ID = the index in the SOCKET Connections array
{
Packet PacketType;
while (true)
{
if (!serverptr->GetPacketType(ID, PacketType)) //Get packet type
break; //If there is an issue getting the packet type, exit this loop
if (!serverptr->ProcessPacket(ID, PacketType)) //Process packet (packet type)
break; //If there is an issue processing the packet, exit this loop
}
std::cout << "Lost connection to client ID: " << ID << std::endl;
}
When the client sends a message, the thread will process it and send it by first sending packet type, then sending the size of the message/packet, and finally sending the message.
bool Server::SendString(int ID, std::string & _string)
{
if (!SendPacketType(ID, P_ChatMessage))
return false;
int bufferlength = _string.size();
if (!SendInt(ID, bufferlength))
return false;
int RetnCheck = send(Connections[ID], _string.c_str(), bufferlength, NULL); //Send string buffer
if (RetnCheck == SOCKET_ERROR)
return false;
return true;
}
The issue arises when two threads (Two separate clients) are synchronously trying to send a message at the same time to the same ID. (The same third client). One thread may send to the client the int packet type, so the client is now prepared to receive an int, but then the second thread sends a string. (Because the thread assumes the client is waiting for that). The client is unable to process correctly and results in the program being unusable.
How would I solve this issue?
One solution I had:
Rather than allow each thread to execute server commands on their own, they would set an input value. The main server thread would loop through all the input values from each thread and then execute the commands one by one.
However I am unsure this won't have problems of its own... If a client sends multiple messages in the time frame of a single server loop, only one of the messages will send (since the new message would over-write the previous message). Of course there are ways around this, such as arrays of input or faster loops, but it still poses a problem.
Another issue that I thought of was that a client with a lower ID would always end up having their message sent first each loop. This isn't that big of a deal but if there was a situation, say, a trivia game, where two clients entered the correct answer in the same loop then the client with the lower ID would end up saying the answer "first" every time.
Thanks in advance.
If all I/O is being handled through a central server, a simple (but certainly not elegant) solution is to create a barrier around the I/O mechanisms to each client. In the simplest case this can just be a mutex. Associate that barrier with each client and anytime someone wants to send that client something (a complete message), lock the barrier. Unlock it when the complete message is handled. That way only one client can actually send something to another client at a time. In C++11, see std::mutex.
I use a blocking FSocket in client-side that connected to tcp server, if there's no message from server, socket thread would block in function FScoket::Recv(), if TCP server shutdown, socket thread is still blocking in this function. but when use blocking socket of BSD Socket API, thread would pass from recv function and return errno when TCP server shutdown, so is it the defect of FSocket?
uint32 HRecvThread::Run()
{
uint8* recv_buf = new uint8[RECV_BUF_SIZE];
uint8* const recv_buf_head = recv_buf;
int readLenSeq = 0;
while (Started)
{
//if (TcpClient->Connected() && ClientSocket->GetConnectionState() != SCS_Connected)
//{
// // server disconnected
// TcpClient->SetConnected(false);
// break;
//}
int32 bytesRead = 0;
//because use blocking socket, so thread would block in Recv function if have no message
ClientSocket->Recv(recv_buf, readLenSeq, bytesRead);
.....
//some logic of resolution for tcp msg bytes
.....
}
delete[] recv_buf;
return 0
}
As I expected, you are ignoring the return code, which presumably indicates success or failure, so you are looping indefinitely (not blocking) on an error or end of stream condition.
NB You should allocate the recv_buf on the stack, not dynamically. Don't use the heap when you don't have to.
There is a similar question on the forums in the UE4 C++ Programming section. Here is the discussion:
https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?111552-Recv-function-would-keep-blocking-when-TCP-server-shutdown
Long story short, in the UE4 Source, they ignore EWOULDBLOCK as an error. The code comments state that they do not view it as an error.
Also, there are several helper functions you should be using when opening the port and when polling the port (I assume you are polling since you are using blocking calls)
FSocket::Connect returns a bool, so make sure to check that return
value.
FSocket::GetLastError returns the UE4 Translated error code if an
error occured with the socket.
FSocket::HasPendingData will return a value that informs you if it
is safe to read from the socket.
FSocket::HasPendingConnection can check to see your connection state.
FSocket::GetConnectionState will tell you your active connection state.
Using these helper functions for error checking before making a call to FSocket::Recv will help you make sure you are in a good state before trying to read data. Also, it was noted in the forum posts that using the non-blocking code worked as expected. So, if you do not have a specific reason to use blocking code, just use the non-blocking implementation.
Also, as a final hint, using FSocket::Wait will block until your socket is in a desirable state of your choosing with a timeout, i.e. is readable or has data.
I am currently working on a project written in C++ involving UDP real time connection. I receive UDP packets from a control computer containing commands to start/stop an infinite while loop that reads data from an IMU and sends that data to the control computer.
My problem is the following: First I implemented an exit condition from the loop using recvfrom() and read(), but the control computer sends a UDP packet every second, which was delaying the whole loop and made sending the data in the desired time interval of 5ms impossible.
I tried to fix this problem by usingfcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);and using only read(), which actually works fine, but I am unsure whether this is a wise idea or not, since I am not checking for errors anymore. Is there any elegant way how to solve this problem? I thought about using Pthreads or something like that, however I have never worked with threads or parallel programming so I would have to spend some time learning that.
I appreciate any advice on that problem you could give me.
Here is a code example:
//include
...
int main() {
RNet cmd; //RNet: struct that contains all the information of the UDP header and the command
RNet* pCmd = &cmd;
ssize_t b;
int fd2;
struct sockaddr_in snd; // sender is control computer
socklen_t length;
// further declaration of variables, connecting to socket, etc...
...
fcntl(fd2, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
while (1)
{
// read messages from control computer
if ((b = read(fd2, pCmd, 19)) > 0) {
memcpy(&cmd, pCmd, b);
}
// transmission
while (cmd.CLout.MotionCommand == 1) // MotionCommand: 1 - send messages; 0 - do nothing
{
if(time_elapsed >= 5) // elapsed time in ms
{
// update sensor values
...
//sendto ()
...
// update control time, timestamp, etc.
...
}
if (recvfrom(fd2, pCmd, (int)sizeof(pCmd), 0, (struct sockaddr*) &snd, &length) < 0) {
perror("error receiving data");
return 0;
}
// checking Control Model Command
if ((b = read(fd2, pCmd, 19)) > 0) {
memcpy(&cmd, pCmd, b);
}
}
}
}
I really like the "blocking calls on multiple threads" design. It enables you to have distinct independent tasks, and you don't have to worry about how each task can disturb another. It can have some drawbacks but it is usually a good fit for many needs.
To do that, just use pthread_create to create a new thread for each task (you may keep the main thread for one task). In your case, you should have a thread to receive commands, and another one to send your data. You also need for the receiving thread to notify the sending thread of the commands. To do that, you can use some synchronization tool, like a mutex.
Overall, you should have your receiving thread blocking on recvfrom, and the sending thread waiting for a signal from the mutex (wait for the mutex to be freed, technically). When the receiving thread receive a start command, it signals the mutex and go back to recvfrom (optionally you can set a variable to provide more information to the other thread).
As a comment, remember that UDP are 1-to-many, thus your code here will react to any packet sent to you (even from some random or malicious host). You may want to filter with the remote sockaddr after recvfrom, or use connect + recv. It depends on what you want.
When you use the simple ZeroMQ REQ/REP pattern you depend on a fixed send()->recv() / recv()->send() sequence.
As this article describes you get into trouble when a participant disconnects in the middle of a request because then you can't just start over with receiving the next request from another connection but the state machine would force you to send a request to the disconnected one.
Has there emerged a more elegant way to solve this since the mentioned article has been written?
Is reconnecting the only way to solve this (apart from not using REQ/REP but use another pattern)
As the accepted answer seem so terribly sad to me, I did some research and have found that everything we need was actually in the documentation.
The .setsockopt() with the correct parameter can help you resetting your socket state-machine without brutally destroy it and rebuild another on top of the previous one dead body.
(yeah I like the image).
ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE: match replies with requests
The default behaviour of REQ sockets is to rely on the ordering of messages to match requests and responses and that is usually sufficient. When this option is set to 1, the REQ socket will prefix outgoing messages with an extra frame containing a request id. That means the full message is (request id, 0, user frames…). The REQ socket will discard all incoming messages that don't begin with these two frames.
Option value type int
Option value unit 0, 1
Default value 0
Applicable socket types ZMQ_REQ
ZMQ_REQ_RELAXED: relax strict alternation between request and reply
By default, a REQ socket does not allow initiating a new request with zmq_send(3) until the reply to the previous one has been received. When set to 1, sending another message is allowed and has the effect of disconnecting the underlying connection to the peer from which the reply was expected, triggering a reconnection attempt on transports that support it. The request-reply state machine is reset and a new request is sent to the next available peer.
If set to 1, also enable ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE to ensure correct matching of requests and replies. Otherwise a late reply to an aborted request can be reported as the reply to the superseding request.
Option value type int
Option value unit 0, 1
Default value 0
Applicable socket types ZMQ_REQ
A complete documentation is here
The good news is that, as of ZMQ 3.0 and later (the modern era), you can set a timeout on a socket. As others have noted elsewhere, you must do this after you have created the socket, but before you connect it:
zmq_req_socket.setsockopt( zmq.RCVTIMEO, 500 ) # milliseconds
Then, when you actually try to receive the reply (after you have sent a message to the REP socket), you can catch the error that will be asserted if the timeout is exceeded:
try:
send( message, 0 )
send_failed = False
except zmq.Again:
logging.warning( "Image send failed." )
send_failed = True
However! When this happens, as observed elsewhere, your socket will be in a funny state, because it will still be expecting the response. At this point, I cannot find anything that works reliably other than just restarting the socket. Note that if you disconnect() the socket and then re connect() it, it will still be in this bad state. Thus you need to
def reset_my_socket:
zmq_req_socket.close()
zmq_req_socket = zmq_context.socket( zmq.REQ )
zmq_req_socket.setsockopt( zmq.RCVTIMEO, 500 ) # milliseconds
zmq_req_socket.connect( zmq_endpoint )
You will also notice that because I close()d the socket, the receive timeout option was "lost", so it is important set that on the new socket.
I hope this helps. And I hope that this does not turn out to be the best answer to this question. :)
There is one solution to this and that is adding timeouts to all calls. Since ZeroMQ by itself does not really provide simple timeout functionality I recommend using a subclass of the ZeroMQ socket that adds a timeout parameter to all important calls.
So, instead of calling s.recv() you would call s.recv(timeout=5.0) and if a response does not come back within that 5 second window it will return None and stop blocking. I had made a futile attempt at this when I run into this problem.
I'm actually looking into this at the moment, because I am retro fitting a legacy system.
I am coming across code constantly that "needs" to know about the state of the connection. However the thing is I want to move to the message passing paradigm that the library promotes.
I found the following function : zmq_socket_monitor
What it does is monitor the socket passed to it and generate events that are then passed to an "inproc" endpoint - at that point you can add handling code to actually do something.
There is also an example (actually test code) here : github
I have not got any specific code to give at the moment (maybe at the end of the week) but my intention is to respond to the connect and disconnects such that I can actually perform any resetting of logic required.
Hope this helps, and despite quoting 4.2 docs, I am using 4.0.4 which seems to have the functionality
as well.
Note I notice you talk about python above, but the question is tagged C++ so that's where my answer is coming from...
Update: I'm updating this answer with this excellent resource here: https://blog.cloudflare.com/when-tcp-sockets-refuse-to-die/ Socket programming is complicated so do checkout the references in this post.
None of the answers here seem accurate or useful. The OP is not looking for information on BSD socket programming. He is trying to figure out how to robustly handle accept()ed client-socket failures in ZMQ on the REP socket to prevent the server from hanging or crashing.
As already noted -- this problem is complicated by the fact that ZMQ tries to pretend that the servers listen()ing socket is the same as an accept()ed socket (and there is no where in the documentation that describes how to set basic timeouts on such sockets.)
My answer:
After doing a lot of digging through the code, the only relevant socket options passed along to accept()ed socks seem to be keep alive options from the parent listen()er. So the solution is to set the following options on the listen socket before calling send or recv:
void zmq_setup(zmq::context_t** context, zmq::socket_t** socket, const char* endpoint)
{
// Free old references.
if(*socket != NULL)
{
(**socket).close();
(**socket).~socket_t();
}
if(*context != NULL)
{
// Shutdown all previous server client-sockets.
zmq_ctx_destroy((*context));
(**context).~context_t();
}
*context = new zmq::context_t(1);
*socket = new zmq::socket_t(**context, ZMQ_REP);
// Enable TCP keep alive.
int is_tcp_keep_alive = 1;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE, &is_tcp_keep_alive, sizeof(is_tcp_keep_alive));
// Only send 2 probes to check if client is still alive.
int tcp_probe_no = 2;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE_CNT, &tcp_probe_no, sizeof(tcp_probe_no));
// How long does a con need to be "idle" for in seconds.
int tcp_idle_timeout = 1;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE_IDLE, &tcp_idle_timeout, sizeof(tcp_idle_timeout));
// Time in seconds between individual keep alive probes.
int tcp_probe_interval = 1;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE_INTVL, &tcp_probe_interval, sizeof(tcp_probe_interval));
// Discard pending messages in buf on close.
int is_linger = 0;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_LINGER, &is_linger, sizeof(is_linger));
// TCP user timeout on unacknowledged send buffer
int is_user_timeout = 2;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_MAXRT, &is_user_timeout, sizeof(is_user_timeout));
// Start internal enclave event server.
printf("Host: Starting enclave event server\n");
(**socket).bind(endpoint);
}
What this does is tell the operating system to aggressively check the client socket for timeouts and reap them for cleanup when a client doesn't return a heart beat in time. The result is that the OS will send a SIGPIPE back to your program and socket errors will bubble up to send / recv - fixing a hung server. You then need to do two more things:
1. Handle SIGPIPE errors so the program doesn't crash
#include <signal.h>
#include <zmq.hpp>
// zmq_setup def here [...]
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
// Ignore SIGPIPE signals.
signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
// ... rest of your code after
// (Could potentially also restart the server
// sock on N SIGPIPEs if you're paranoid.)
// Start server socket.
const char* endpoint = "tcp://127.0.0.1:47357";
zmq::context_t* context;
zmq::socket_t* socket;
zmq_setup(&context, &socket, endpoint);
// Message buffers.
zmq::message_t request;
zmq::message_t reply;
// ... rest of your socket code here
}
2. Check for -1 returned by send or recv and catch ZMQ errors.
// E.g. skip broken accepted sockets (pseudo-code.)
while (1):
{
try
{
if ((*socket).recv(&request)) == -1)
throw -1;
}
catch (...)
{
// Prevent any endless error loops killing CPU.
sleep(1)
// Reset ZMQ state machine.
try
{
zmq::message_t blank_reply = zmq::message_t();
(*socket).send (blank_reply);
}
catch (...)
{
1;
}
continue;
}
Notice the weird code that tries to send a reply on a socket failure? In ZMQ, a REP server "socket" is an endpoint to another program making a REQ socket to that server. The result is if you go do a recv on a REP socket with a hung client, the server sock becomes stuck in a broken receive loop where it will wait forever to receive a valid reply.
To force an update on the state machine, you try send a reply. ZMQ detects that the socket is broken, and removes it from its queue. The server socket becomes "unstuck", and the next recv call returns a new client from the queue.
To enable timeouts on an async client (in Python 3), the code would look something like this:
import asyncio
import zmq
import zmq.asyncio
#asyncio.coroutine
def req(endpoint):
ms = 2000 # In milliseconds.
sock = ctx.socket(zmq.REQ)
sock.setsockopt(zmq.SNDTIMEO, ms)
sock.setsockopt(zmq.RCVTIMEO, ms)
sock.setsockopt(zmq.LINGER, ms) # Discard pending buffered socket messages on close().
sock.setsockopt(zmq.CONNECT_TIMEOUT, ms)
# Connect the socket.
# Connections don't strictly happen here.
# ZMQ waits until the socket is used (which is confusing, I know.)
sock.connect(endpoint)
# Send some bytes.
yield from sock.send(b"some bytes")
# Recv bytes and convert to unicode.
msg = yield from sock.recv()
msg = msg.decode(u"utf-8")
Now you have some failure scenarios when something goes wrong.
By the way -- if anyone's curious -- the default value for TCP idle timeout in Linux seems to be 7200 seconds or 2 hours. So you would be waiting a long time for a hung server to do anything!
Sources:
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/84dc40dd90fdc59b91cb011a14c1abb79b01b726/src/tcp_listener.cpp#L82 TCP keep alive options preserved for client sock
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/TCP-Keepalive-HOWTO/ How does keep alive work
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/builds/zos/README.md Handling sig pipe errors
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2586 for information on closing sockets
https://blog.cloudflare.com/when-tcp-sockets-refuse-to-die/
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/976
Disclaimer:
I've tested this code and it seems to be working, but ZMQ does complicate testing this a fair bit because the client re-connects on failure? If anyone wants to use this solution in production, I recommend writing some basic unit tests, first.
The server code could also be improved a lot with threading or polling to be able to handle multiple clients at once. As it stands, a malicious client can temporarily take up resources from the server (3 second timeout) which isn't ideal.
I read that it should be safe from different threads concurrently, but my program has some weird behaviour and I don't know what's wrong.
I have concurrent threads communicating with a client socket
one doing send to a socket
one doing select and then recv from the same socket
As I'm still sending, the client has already received the data and closed the socket.
At the same time, I'm doing a select and recv on that socket, which returns 0 (since it is closed) so I close this socket. However, the send has not returned yet...and since I call close on this socket the send call fails with EBADF.
I know the client has received the data correctly since I output it after I close the socket and it is right. However, on my end, my send call is still returning an error (EBADF), so I want to fix it so it doesn't fail.
This doesn't always happen. It happens maybe 40% of the time. I don't use sleep anywhere. Am I supposed to have pauses between sends or recvs or anything?
Here's some code:
Sending:
while(true)
{
// keep sending until send returns 0
n = send(_sfd, bytesPtr, sentSize, 0);
if (n == 0)
{
break;
}
else if(n<0)
{
cerr << "ERROR: send returned an error "<<errno<< endl; // this case is triggered
return n;
}
sentSize -= n;
bytesPtr += n;
}
Receiving:
while(true)
{
memset(bufferPointer,0,sizeLeft);
n = recv(_sfd,bufferPointer,sizeLeft, 0);
if (debug) cerr << "Receiving..."<<sizeLeft<<endl;
if(n == 0)
{
cerr << "Connection closed"<<endl; // this case is triggered
return n;
}
else if (n < 0)
{
cerr << "ERROR reading from socket"<<endl;
return n;
}
bufferPointer += n;
sizeLeft -= n;
if(sizeLeft <= 0) break;
}
On the client, I use the same receive code, then I call close() on the socket.
Then on my side, I get 0 from the receive call and also call close() on the socket
Then my send fails. It still hasn't finished?! But my client already got the data!
I must admit I'm surprised you see this problem as often as you do, but it's always a possibility when you're dealing with threads. When you call send() you'll end up going into the kernel to append the data to the socket buffer in there, and it's therefore quite likely that there'll be a context switch, maybe to another process in the system. Meanwhile the kernel has probably buffered and transmitted the packet quite quickly. I'm guessing you're testing on a local network, so the other end receives the data and closes the connection and sends the appropriate FIN back to your end very quickly. This could all happen while the sending machine is still running other threads or processes because the latency on a local ethernet network is so low.
Now the FIN arrives - your receive thread hasn't done a lot lately since it's been waiting for input. Many scheduling systems will therefore raise its priority quite a bit and there's a good chance it'll be run next (you don't specify which OS you're using but this is likely to happen on at least Linux, for example). This thread closes the socket due to its zero read. At some point shortly after this the sending thread will be re-awoken, but presumably the kernel notices that the socket is closed before it returns from the blocked send() and returns EBADF.
Now this is just speculation as to the exact cause - among other things it heavily depends on your platform. But you can see how this could happen.
The easiest solution is probably to use poll() in the sending thread as well, but wait for the socket to become write-ready instead of read-ready. Obviously you also need to wait until there's any buffered data to send - how you do that depends on which thread buffers the data. The poll() call will let you detect when the connection has been closed by flagging it with POLLHUP, which you can detect before you try your send().
As a general rule you shouldn't close a socket until you're certain that the send buffer has been fully flushed - you can only be sure of this once the send() call has returned and indicates that all the remaining data has gone out. I've handled this in the past by checking the send buffer when I get a zero read and if it's not empty I set a "closing" flag. In your case the sending thread would then use this as a hint to do the close once everything is flushed. This matters because if the remote end does a half-close with shutdown() then you'll get a zero read even if it might still be reading. You might not care about half closes, however, in which case your strategy above is OK.
Finally, I personally would avoid the hassle of sending and receiving threads and just have a single thread which does both - that's more or less the point of select() and poll(), to allow a single thread of execution to deal with one or more filehandles without worrying about performing an operation which blocks and starves the other connections.
Found the problem. It's with my loop. Notice that it's an infinite loop. When I don't have anymore left to send, my sentSize is 0, but I'll still loop to try to send more. At this time, the other thread has already closed this thread and so my send call for 0 bytes returns with an error.
I fixed it by changing the loop to stop looping when sentSize is 0 and it fixed the problem!