I have a program that runs indefinitely. For testing purposes I have made a wrapper program that kills the other after a specified amount of time (specified via command line/terminal args). The program being forked requires that it is passed two folders with the same name (I have no control over this), so I simply pass it the same arg twice as can be seen here:
pid_t pid = fork();
if(pid == 0)
{
//build the execution string
char* test[2];
test[0] = argv[2];
test[1] = argv[2];
test[2] = NULL;
cout << "test[0] is " << test[0] << endl;
cout << "test[1] is " << test[1] << endl;
cout << "argv[1] is " << argv[1] << endl;
execvp(argv[1],test);
}
The problem is that the program being passed in argv[1] keeps segmentation faulting. If I call the by itself via the terminal it runs with no problems. I am passing the same folder in both cases. Can anyone tell me why it isn't working for execvp?
I should mention a co-worker ran it on his computer as well, and it will stand up fine the first time, but each time after that, it will seg fault.
edit: I have added a null term to test, however, this has not fixed the issue.
The command's form is exactly:
<executable> <wrapped prog> <folder> <duration>
In relative paths it's:
Intel/debug/Tester.exe <program> test 10
If the length of the array is static, you might be better off with
execlp
execlp(argv[1], argv[1], argv[2], argv[2], (char*)0);
As for execvp, the array should start with the name of the executable and end with NULL.
execvp
char* args[] = { argv[1], argv[2], argv[2], NULL };
execvp(argv[1], args);
runWithTimeout
In any case, if all you want is a simple wrapper that runs a single child with a timeout, then your program could be very simple and general if only you'd be willing to start with the timeout argument:
/*runWithTimeout.c
compile with: make runWithTimeout
run with: ./runWithTimeout seconds program arguments...
*/
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
assert(argc >= 1+2);
int pid, status = 1;
if((pid = fork()) == 0) {
alarm(atoi(argv[1]));
execvp(argv[2], argv + 2);
/*^the child ends here if execvp succeeds,
otherwise fall-through and return the default error status of 1
(once in child (which has no one to wait on) and
then in the parent (which gets the status from the child))*/
perror("Couldn't exec");
}else if(pid < 0){ perror("Couldn't fork"); };
wait(&status);
return status;
}
Array passed as arguments should be null-terminated. For example:
char *test[3]={0};
...
You can turn on core dumps ( make sure to shut them off when done ) ulimit -c unlimited . Run it before you run your main process. ( I would be leary of running it in the fork though you probably can. )
When your program crashes this will produce a core dump which you can examine with gdb.
For help with core files, you can just google them.
Other then that. You can make a script which launches your file. You can use the script to log stuff.
You want:
char* test[3];
test[0] = argv[2];
test[1] = argv[2];
test[2] = NULL;
You need a NULL parameter to mark the end of the parameter list.
Given the specification:
The command's form is exactly:
<executable> <wrapped prog> <folder> <duration>
In relative paths it's:
Intel/debug/Tester.exe <program> test 10
and also:
The program being forked requires that it is passed two folders with the same name…
then, assuming you've checked that the wrapper is passed 4 arguments, the code you need is:
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
//build the execution string
char *test[4]; // Note the size!
test[0] = argv[1]; // Program name: argv[0] in exec'd process
test[1] = argv[2]; // Directory name: argv[1] …
test[2] = argv[2]; // Directory name: argv[2] …
test[3] = NULL; // Null terminator
cout << "test[0] is " << test[0] << endl;
cout << "test[1] is " << test[1] << endl;
cout << "test[2] is " << test[2] << endl;
execvp(test[0], test);
cerr << "Failed to exec '" << test[0] << "': " << strerror(errno) << endl;
exit(1); // Or throw an exception, or …
}
There is seldom (but not never) a reason to invoke execvp() other than using the idiom execvp(argv[0], argv) for the array of arguments in argv.
Note that this code ensures that the control flow doesn't escape from the statement block that is supposed to represent the child. Having the child process continue afterwards, usually in effect thinking it is a parent process, leads to confusion. Always make sure the child execs or exits. (That's a rhetorical over-statement — yes; but there's a large chunk of truth behind the idea too.) Also, since this is C++, you may need to consider How to end C++ code?. That complicates life. The crucial thing is that if the child process fails to exec, it does not continue as if it was a parent process.
Related
if everything is not perfect I apologize;)
I am doing a program in c ++ that when it receives a sensor information, shows a picture with feh full screen.
The problem is that when I want to go from one image to another, It opens a new feh, until the moment when the computer crashes because it takes all the memory ...
How to make the opening of an image close the previous one?
This is my current command line :
system("feh -F ressources/icon_communication.png&");
I must specify that I also trigger a sound, but that there is no problem because the program closes automatically at the end of the sound:
system("paplay /home/pi/demo_ecran_interactif/ressources/swip.wav&");
Tried this as a test and works ! Thanks #paul-sanders !
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>
using namespace std;
pid_t display_image_file (const char *image_file)
{
pid_t pid = fork ();
if (pid == -1)
{
std::cout << "Could not fork, error: " << errno << "\n";
return -1;
}
if (pid != 0) // parent
return pid;
// child
execlp ("feh", "-F", image_file, NULL); // only returns on failure
std::cout << "Couldn't exec feh for image file " << image_file << ", error: " << errno << "\n";
return -1;
}
int main()
{
pid_t pid = display_image_file ("nav.png");
if (pid != -1)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::milliseconds (2000));
kill (pid, SIGKILL);
}
pid_t pid2 = display_image_file ("sms2.png");
}
Soooooooooo, the goal here (in terms of your test program) seems to be:
display nav.png in feh
wait 2 seconds
close (that instance of) feh
display sms2.png in feh
And if you can get the test program doing that then you will be on your way (I'm not going to worry my pretty little head about your sound issue (because it's 30+ degrees here today), but once you have your test program running right then you will probably be able to figure out how to solve that one yourself).
So, two issues that I see in your code here:
you're not making any effort to close the first instance of 'feh'
execlp() doesn't do quite what you probably think it does (specifically, it never returns, unless it fails for some reason).
So what I think you need to do is something like this (code untested, might not even compile and you need to figure out the right header files to #include, but it should at least get you going):
pid_t display_image_file (const char *image_file)
{
pid_t pid = fork ();
if (pid == -1)
{
std::cout << "Could not fork, error: " << errno << "\n";
return -1;
}
if (pid != 0) // parent
return pid;
// child
execlp ("feh", "-F", image_file, NULL); // only returns on failure
std::cout << "Couldn't exec feh for image file " << image_file << ", error: " << errno << "\n";
return -1;
}
int main()
{
pid_t pid = display_image_file ("nav.png");
if (pid != -1)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::milliseconds (2000));
kill (pid, SIGKILL);
}
pid_t pid = display_image_file ("sms2.png");
// ...
}
Does that help?
Currently I am making a C/C++ program for the Linux Operating system.
I want to use a named pipe to communicate a PID (process ID) between two programs.
The pipe has been created and is visible in the directory.
The Get PID program says that the file descriptor returns 3, while it should return 0 if it could open the pipe. What am I doing wrong?
Get PID
// Several includes
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
pid_t pid;
int sig = 22;
int succesKill;
int iFIFO;
char sPID[5] = {0,1,2,3,'\0'};
iFIFO = open("IDpipe" , O_RDONLY);
if(iFIFO != 0)
{
cerr << "File descriptor does not return 0, but: " << iFIFO << endl;
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
read(iFIFO, sPID, strlen(sPID));
cerr << "In sPID now is: " << sPID << endl;
close(iFIFO);
pid = atoi(sPID);
cout << "The PID I will send signals to is: " << pid << "." << endl;
while(1)
{
succesKill = kill(pid, sig);
cout << "Tried to send signal" << endl;
sleep(5);
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Send PID
// Several includes
using namespace std;
void catch_function(int signo);
volatile sig_atomic_t iAmountSignals = 0;
int main(void) {
pid_t myPID;
int iFIFO;
char sPID[5] = {'l','e','e','g','\0'};
myPID = getpid();
sprintf(sPID, "%d",myPID);
cout << "My PID is: " << sPID << endl;
iFIFO = open("IDpipe" , O_WRONLY);
if(iFIFO == -1)
{
cerr << "Pipe can't be opened for writing, error: " << errno << endl;
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
write(iFIFO, sPID, strlen(sPID));
close(iFIFO);
if (signal(22, catch_function) == SIG_ERR) {
cerr << "An error occurred while setting a signal handler." << endl;
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
cout << "Raising the interactive attention signal." << endl;
if (raise(22) != 0) {
cerr << "Error raising the signal." << endl;
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
while(1)
{
cout << "iAmountSignals is: " << iAmountSignals << endl;
sleep(1);
}
cout << "Exit." << endl;
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
void catch_function(int signo) {
switch(signo) {
case 22:
cout << "Caught a signal 22" << endl;
if(iAmountSignals == 9)
{iAmountSignals = 0;}
else
{++iAmountSignals;}
break;
default:
cerr << "Thats the wrong signal.." << endl;
break;
}
}
Terminal output
Output
open() returns the newly created file descriptor. It cannot return 0 for the simple reason that the new process already has a file descriptor 0. That would be standard input.
The return value of 3 is the expected result from open(), in this case, because that would be the next available file descriptor after standard input, output, and error. If open() couldn't open the file descriptor, it would return -1.
But besides that, your code also has a bunch of other bugs:
sprintf(sPID, "%d",myPID);
// ...
write(iFIFO, sPID, strlen(sPID));
If your process ID happens to be only 3 digits long (which is possible), this will write three bytes to the pipe.
If your process ID happens to be five digits long (which is even more possible), this will write 5 bytes plus the '\0' byte, for a total of six bytes written to the five byte-long sPID buffer, overrunning the array and resulting in undefined behavior.
The actual results are, of course, are undefined, but a typical C++ implementation will end up clobbering the first byte of whatever is the next variable on the stack, which is:
int iFIFO;
which is your file descriptor. So, if your luck runs out and your new process gets a five-digit process id, and this is a little-endian C++ implementation, there is no padding, then the low order byte of iFIFO gets set to 0, and if the code got compiled without any optimizations, the iFIFO file descriptor gets set to 0. Hillarity ensues.
Furthermore, on the other side of the pipe:
char sPID[5] = {0,1,2,3,'\0'};
// ...
read(iFIFO, sPID, strlen(sPID));
Because the first byte of SPID is always set to 0, this will always execute read(iFIFO, sPID, 0), and not read anything.
After that:
pid = atoi(sPID);
atoi() expects a '\0'-terminated string. read() only reads whatever it reads, it will not '\0'-terminate whatever it ends up reading. It is your responsibility to place a '\0' that terminates the read input (and, of course, making sure that the read buffer is big enough), before using atoi().
Your logic appears to be incorrect.
if(iFIFO != 0)
should be
if(iFIFO == -1)
since open returns -1 on error. Otherwise it returns a valid file descriptor.
I am having trouble with shared memory. I have one process that creates and writes to a shared memory segment just fine. But I cannot get a second process to attach that same existing segment. My second process can create a new shared segment if I use IPC_CREATE flag but I need to attach to the existing shared segment that was created by the 1st process.
This is my code in the 2nd process:
int nSharedMemoryID = 10;
key_t tKey = ftok("/dev/null", nSharedMemoryID);
if (tKey == -1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: ftok(id: " << nSharedMemoryID << ") failed, " << strerror(errno) << std::endl;
exit(3);
}
std::cout << "ftok() successful " << std::endl;
size_t nSharedMemorySize = 10000;
int id = shmget(tKey, nSharedMemorySize, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
if (id == -1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: shmget() failed, " << strerror(errno) << std::endl << std::endl;
exit(4);
}
std::cout << "shmget() successful, id: " << id << std::endl;
unsigned char *pBaseSM = (unsigned char *)shmat(id, (const void *)NULL, SHM_RDONLY);
if (pBaseSM == (unsigned char *)-1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: shmat() failed, " << strerror(errno) << std::endl << std::endl;
exit(5);
}
std::cout << "shmat() successful " << std::endl;
The problem is that the 2nd process always errors out on the call to shmget() with a "No such file or directory" error. But this is the exact same code I used in the 1st process and it works just fine there. In the 1st process that created the shared segment, I can write to the memory segment, I can see it with "ipcs -m" Also, if I get the shmid from the "ipcs -m" command of the segment and hard code it in my 2nd process and the 2nd process can attach to it just fine. So the problem seems to be generation of the common id that both processes use to identify a single shared segment.
I have several questions:
(1) Is there an easier way to get the shmid of an existing shared memory segment? It seems crazy to me that I have to pass three separate parameters from the 1st process (that created the segment) to the 2nd process just so the 2nd process can get the same shared segment. I can live with having to pass 2 parameters: the file name like "/dev/null" and the same shared id (nSharedMemoryID in my code). But the size of the segment that has to be passed to the shmget() routine in order to get the shmid seems senseless because I have no idea of exactly how much memory was actually allocated (because of the page size issues) so I cannot be certain it is the same.
(2) does the segment size that I use in the 2nd process have to be the same as the size of the segment used to initially create the segment in the 1st process? I have tried to specify it as 0 but I still get errors.
(3) likewise, do the permissions have to be the same? that is, if the shared segment was created with read/write for user/group/world, can the 2nd process just use read for user? (same user for both processes).
(4) and why does shmget() fail with the "No such file or directory" error when the file "/dev/null" obviously exists for both processes? I am assuming that the 1st process does not put some kind of a lock on that node because that would be senseless.
Thanks for any help anyone can give. I have been struggling with this for hours--which means I am probably doing something really stupid and will ultimately embarrass myself when someone points out my error :-)
thanks,
-Andres
(1) as a different way: the attaching process scan the existing segments of the user, tries to attach with the needed size, check for a "magic byte sequence" at the beginning of the segment (to exclude other programs of the same user). Alternatively you can check if the process attached is the one that you expect. If one of the steps fails, this is the first one and will create the segment... cumbersome yes, I saw it in a code from the '70s.
Eventually you can evaluate to use the POSIX compliant shm_open() alternative - should be simpler or at least more modern...
(2) Regarding the size, it's important that the size specified be less/equal than the size of the existing segment, so no issues if it's rounded to the next memory page size. you get the EINVAL error only if it's larger.
(3) the mode flags are only relevant when you create the segment the first time (mostly sure).
(4) The fact that shmget() fail with the "No such file or directory" means only that it hasn't found a segment with that key (being now pedantic: not id - with id we usually refer to the value returnet by shmget(), used subsequently) - have you checked that the tKey is the same? Your code works fine on my system. Just added a main() around it.
EDIT: attached the working program
#include <iostream>
#include <sys/ipc.h>
#include <sys/shm.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int nSharedMemoryID = 10;
if (argc > 1) {
nSharedMemoryID = atoi(argv[1]);
}
key_t tKey = ftok("/dev/null", nSharedMemoryID);
if (tKey == -1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: ftok(id: " << nSharedMemoryID << ") failed, " << strerror(errno) << std::endl;
exit(3);
}
std::cout << "ftok() successful. key = " << tKey << std::endl;
size_t nSharedMemorySize = 10000;
int id = shmget(tKey, nSharedMemorySize, 0);
if (id == -1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: shmget() failed (WILL TRY TO CREATE IT NEW), " << strerror(errno) << std::endl << std::endl;
id = shmget(tKey, nSharedMemorySize, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH | IPC_CREAT);
if (id == -1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: shmget() failed, " << strerror(errno) << std::endl << std::endl;
exit(4);
}
}
std::cout << "shmget() successful, id: " << id << std::endl;
unsigned char *pBaseSM = (unsigned char *)shmat(id, (const void *)NULL, SHM_RDONLY);
if (pBaseSM == (unsigned char *)-1) {
std::cerr << "ERROR: shmat() failed, " << strerror(errno) << std::endl << std::endl;
exit(5);
}
std::cout << "shmat() successful " << std::endl;
}
EDIT: output
$ ./a.out 33
ftok() successful. key = 553976853
ERROR: shmget() failed (WILL TRY TO CREATE IT NEW), No such file or directory
shmget() successful, id: 20381699
shmat() successful
$ ./a.out 33
ftok() successful. key = 553976853
shmget() successful, id: 20381699
shmat() successful
SOLUTION - after in-chat (wow SO has a chat!) discussion:
At the end the problem was that in the original code he was calling shmctl() later on to tell to detach the segment as the last process detached it, before the other process was attached.
The problem is that this in fact make the segment private. It's key is marked as 0x00000000 by ipcs -m and cannot be attached anymore by other processes - it's in fact marked for lazy deletion.
I just want to post the result of all the help Sigismondo gave me and post the solution to this issue just in case anyone else has the same problem.
The clue was using "ipcs -m" and noticing that the key value was 0 which means that the shared segment is private and so the 2nd process could not attach to it.
An additional quirk was this: I was calling the following:
int nReturnCode = shmctl(id, IPC_RMID, &m_stCtrlStruct);
My intent was to set the mode for the segment so that it would be deleted when all processes that are using it have exited. However, this call has the side effect of making the segment private even though it was created without using the IPC_EXCL flag.
Hopefully this will help anyone else who trips across this issue.
And, many, many thanks to Sigismondo for taking the time to help me--I learned a lot from our chat!
-Andres
I am getting an error when calling fdopen and it sets errno to 22. I am using the exec command to call a child process. The child calls fdopen on file descriptor 4. The first child works and sends data back to the parent and errno is 0. After the parent creates the next child process, fdopen(4, "w"); is called again which is when errno is set to 22.
From what I've read, errno 22 for fdopen() could mean mode argument is incorrect. I also read that it could be an error from fnctl and that could mean a bad file descriptor. I specify file descriptor 4 and it works on the first child process. Could that be why errno is being set to 22 when I try to create another FILE*?
I cannot figure out when it works for one child process but not the next. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
Here is the code:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
cout << "Child " << argv[argc-1] << " starting" << endl;
//close(3);
if(argc < 1) fatal("Not enough arguments provided to ChildMain");
int id = atoi(argv[argc-1]);
//Child kid((int) *argv[1]);
cout << "Error before fdopen(): " << errno << endl;
FILE* out = fdopen(4, "w");
if(out == NULL)
{
cout << "Child ID: " << id << endl;
cout << "\tError: " << errno << endl << endl;
}
int ret = fprintf(out, "%d", id);
fflush(out);
return 0;
}
For the first child process, the file descriptor's number is 4. For the second child process, 4 is in use in the parent, so it gets some other file descriptor number. The child is either going to have to search for the file descriptor or the parent will have to communicate it to the child in the environment, on the child's command line, or some other way.
This is my code... I don't know why I'm get an error segment... could somebody explain the reason to me?
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
// Required by for routine
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
using namespace std;
int globalVariable = 2;
main()
{
string sIdentifier;
int iStackVariable = 20;
pid_t pID = vfork();
if (pID == 0) // child
{
// Code only executed by child process
sIdentifier = "Child Process: ";
globalVariable++;
iStackVariable++;
cout << "PROCESO NUMERO"<<getpid()<<sIdentifier;
// printf("Proceso hijo: PID %d - PPID %d\n", getpid(), getppid());
cout << " Global variable: " << globalVariable;
cout << " Stack variable: " << iStackVariable << endl;
return (0);
}
else if (pID < 0) // failed to fork
{
cerr << "Failed to fork" << endl;
return (1);
// Throw exception
}
else // parent
{
// Code only executed by parent process
sIdentifier = "Parent Process:";
}
// executed only by parent
cout << sIdentifier;
cout << " Global variable: " << globalVariable;
cout << " Stack variable: " << iStackVariable << endl;
return (0);
}
Is this of use ? Note the caveats surrounding modification of variables.
The vfork() function has the same effect as fork(), except that the behaviour is undefined if the process created by vfork() either modifies any data other than a variable of type pid_t used to store the return value from vfork(), or returns from the function in which vfork() was called, or calls any other function before successfully calling _exit() or one of the exec family of functions.
If you vfork() both processes are sharing an address space. You should probably only use vfork() if you are going to exec another process pretty much immediately in the child. The reason the system call was created was to avoid the overhead of copying every page in the parent process's address space only to have all those mappings discarded when the child exec's. For your case, use fork() instead.