Problem:
There is a C application that calls a Bash script each time an event happens. And there is also a C++ application that needs to track down those events. The C++ application is driven by a select() event loop. What would be the most simplest IPC to implement between Bash script and C++ application?
C Application ---Each time calls Bash script---> Bash application ---???---> C++ Application
Few solutions that came into my mind:
To use TCP networking sockets, but this would mean that select will have to handle events for both Listening and Actual sockets
To use Named pipes, but once the bash script terminates then the other end of the pipe is closed as well
Is there something simpler that would allow me to use only one File Descriptor in select()?
Unix datagram or UDP socket would do. The bash script would just send a datagram to that socket (you may need a helper program that does sendmsg() or sendto() on that socket, such as socat or netcat/nc). The receiver does not need to accept connections for datagram sockets, once it is ready for read there must be a datagram waiting. Subject to datagram length restrictions.
I would do it with a unnamed pipe(). Remember: In UNIX file descriptors remain open after fork() and execve() in both processes! So you can use pipe() to get a pair of file descriptors and then write into the fd using bash's echo >&FD where FD is the file descriptor number.
That is very straight forward, easy and uses less resources than anything else I assume. The use of select() is no problem, just do not block on read() is I do in my sample but select() on pfds[0].
Sample program (spawns 10 bash processes which send 'hello work, my pid: XXX', waiting 1s between spawning the processes. The sample only uses one pipe for all the children. I changed it that way because the author asked about that. In practice, I would NOT recommend it (see the note below the sample)):
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int pfds[2];
pid_t p;
assert(0 == pipe(pfds));
p = fork();
if (p == 0) {
unsigned int i;
char str_fd[3]; char *env[] = {NULL};
char *args[] = { "/bin/bash", "-c", "echo >&$1 hello world, my pid: $$"
, "-s", str_fd, NULL};
snprintf(str_fd, 3, "%d", pfds[1]);
str_fd[2] = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
p = fork();
if(0 == p) {
assert(0 ==
execve( "/bin/bash", (char *const*)args
, (char *const*)env));
} else if (0 > p) {
perror("fork");
exit(1);
} else {
wait(NULL);
}
sleep(1);
}
} else if(p > 0) {
char *buf = malloc(100);
ssize_t sz;
printf("fd is %d, <hit Ctrl+C to exit>\n", pfds[1]);
while(0 < ( sz = read(pfds[0], buf, 100))) {
buf[99] = 0;
printf("received: '%s'\n", buf);
}
free(buf);
if (0 == sz) {
fprintf(stderr, "EOF!");
} else {
perror("read from bash failed");
}
wait(NULL);
} else {
perror("fork failed");
exit(1);
}
return 0;
}
sample program output:
$ gcc test.c && ./a.out
fd is 4, <hit Ctrl+C to exit>
received: 'hello world, my pid: 779
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 780
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 781
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 782
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 783
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 784
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 785
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 786
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 787
'
received: 'hello world, my pid: 788
'
works, bashs send 'hello world, my pid: XXX\n' to parent process all using one pipe :-).
Nevertheless that seems to work as the demo program shows (should be ok using the POSIX semantics and tested under Linux and MacOS X), I would recommend using one pipe() per child process. That will lead to fewer problems and running more than one child process at a time is possible, too. select() or epoll() (if you have MANY child processes) are your friend.
Since pipe() is very cheap, in particular compared to bash!, I would definitely not use the same pipe for more than more than one child (as my updated sample now does).
You could use a lightweight messaging queue like ZeroMQ. I think you would use its PUSH-PULL mechanism. Your C program or the bash script pushes events while the C++ application pulls them. ZeroMQ is written in C but, besides many others, there exists a C++ and a Python binding for it. See here for a PUSH-PULL example.
Related
I need the simplest most reliable IPC method from one C++ app running on the RPi to another app.
All I'm trying to do is send a string message of 40 characters from one app to another
The first app is running as a service on boot, the other app is started at a later time and is frequently exited and restarted for debugging
The frequent debugging for the second app is whats causing problems with the IPCs I've tried so far
I've tried about 3 different methods and here is where they failed:
File FIFO, the problem is one program hangs while the other program is writing to the file
Shared memory: cannot initialize on one thread and read from another thread. Also frequent exiting while debugging causing GDB crashes with the following GDB command is taking too long to complete -stack-list-frames --thread 1
UDP socket with localhost - same issue as above, plus improper exits block the socket, forcing me to reboot device
Non blocking pipe - not getting any messages on the receiving process
What else can I try? I dont want to get the DBus library, seems too complex for this application.
Any simple server and client code or a link to it would be helpful
Here is my non-blockign pipe code, that doesnt work for me,
I assume its because I dont have a reference to the pipe from one app to the other
Code sourced from here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/non-blocking-io-with-pipes-in-c/
char* msg1 = "hello";
char* msg2 = "bye !!";
int p[2], i;
bool InitClient()
{
// error checking for pipe
if(pipe(p) < 0)
exit(1);
// error checking for fcntl
if(fcntl(p[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK) < 0)
exit(2);
//Read
int nread;
char buf[MSGSIZE];
// write link
close(p[1]);
while (1) {
// read call if return -1 then pipe is
// empty because of fcntl
nread = read(p[0], buf, MSGSIZE);
switch (nread) {
case -1:
// case -1 means pipe is empty and errono
// set EAGAIN
if(errno == EAGAIN) {
printf("(pipe empty)\n");
sleep(1);
break;
}
default:
// text read
// by default return no. of bytes
// which read call read at that time
printf("MSG = % s\n", buf);
}
}
return true;
}
bool InitServer()
{
// error checking for pipe
if(pipe(p) < 0)
exit(1);
// error checking for fcntl
if(fcntl(p[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK) < 0)
exit(2);
//Write
// read link
close(p[0]);
// write 3 times "hello" in 3 second interval
for(i = 0 ; i < 3000000000 ; i++) {
write(p[0], msg1, MSGSIZE);
sleep(3);
}
// write "bye" one times
write(p[0], msg2, MSGSIZE);
return true;
}
Please consider ZeroMQ
https://zeromq.org/
It is lightweight and has wrapper for all major programming languages.
I am trying to write a program that runs an external program.
I know that I can catch stdout, and I can catch stdout and stderr together BUT the question is can I catch the stderr and stdout separated?
I mean for example, stderr in variable STDERR and stdout in variable STDOUT. I mean I want them separated.
Also I need the exit code of the external program in a variable.
On Windows you must fill STARTUPINFO for the CreateProcess to catch standart streams, and you can use GetExitCodeProcess function to get the termination status. There is an example how to redirect standart streams into the parent process http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682499.aspx
On Linux-like OS you probably want to use fork instead of execve, and working with a forked process is another story.
In Windows and Linux redirecting streams has general approach - you must create several pipes (one for each stream) and redirect child process streams into that pipes, and the parent process can read data from that pipes.
Sample code for Linux:
int fd[2];
if (pipe(fd) == -1) {
perror("pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
pid_t cpid = fork();
if (cpid == -1) {
perror("fork");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (cpid == 0) { // child
dup2(fd[1], STDERR_FILENO);
fprintf(stderr, "Hello, World!\n");
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
} else { // parent
char ch;
while (read(fd[0], &ch, 1) > 0)
printf("%c", ch);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
EDIT: If you need to catch streams from another program, use the same stragey as above, first fork, second - use pipes (as in code above), then execve another progrram in child process and use this code in parent process to wait an execution end and catch a return code:
int status;
if (waitpid(cpid, &status, 0) < 0) {
perror("waitpid");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
You can find more details in man pages pipe, dup2 and waitpid.
i'm creating a program to process some data remote.
So i use something like
cat file | ./client -i "machineip" -p "port" -c "command"
i can use the command as "base64 -d | tar -zvt" if i want to get the list inside my tar file.
I have those objects;
Sock.. is an object that implements the C socket.
RCVBUFSIZE = 2000 and the size i use to send and get data
pid to know if i'm the child or the parent process
To do that i i'm using the pipe and fork.
the basic structure is:
int fd[2];
pipe(fd);
if((pid=fork()) == -1) exit(-1);
if(pid == 0)
{
while((recvMsgSize = sock->recv(echoBuffer, RCVBUFSIZE)){
write(fd[1], echoBuffer, recvMsgSize);
}
}
else pipeback(fd,sock)
So i can get the data and send from the parent to the child.
The client read from the stdin and send through the socket and the server read through the socket
The problem is in the pipeBack
void pipeback(int *fdRef, TCPSocket *sock){
char *buffer = new char[2000];
int size;
close(fdRef[1]);
dup2(fdRef[0], 0);
close(fdrEf[0]);
pipe(fout)
if((pid = fork()) == -1)exit(-1);
if(pid ==0){
close(fout[0]);
dup2(fout[1], 1);
close(fout[1]);
execlp("bash", "bash", "-c", "base64", NULL);
}
else{
close(fout[1]);
while((size = read(fout[0], buffer, 2000)) > 0){
sock->send(buffer, size);
write(fileno(stdout), buffer, size);
}
}
}
the problem is the line "execlp("bash", "bash", "-c", "base64", NULL);" if i use the cat on the fourth argument it works, if i use one ls -lahtr is shows me the files on the folder, so, works like a charm.
BUT, when i use base64 or uuencode... probably other commands it stops on the read line, and stops, dies, i used strace and the gdb to see what is happening.
I don't know what i need to do to debug this process.
So i created an separate program, only to read from the stdin and use the pipe to process on base64 or uuencode using the bash.
It works, i thing it is something with the socket or the time, but i dont have any ideas.
Sorry, but my English is not that gooood... XD.
Thanks for everything
NOTE:
I used strace, and i noticed when i use the base64 the pid stops and then it tries to read from the pid (already stopped).
Someone know how i can solve that?
The problem was
I send data and try to recv on the same block of code.
So i'm now using the select to wait until i have some data.
This question already has answers here:
Can popen() make bidirectional pipes like pipe() + fork()?
(6 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
Is it possible to read and write to a file descriptor returned by popen. I have an interactive process I'd like to control through C. If this isn't possible with popen, is there any way around it?
As already answered, popen works in one direction. If you need to read and write, You can create a pipe with pipe(), span a new process by fork() and exec functions and then redirect its input and outputs with dup2(). Anyway I prefer exec over popen, as it gives you better control over the process (e.g. you know its pid)
EDITED:
As comments suggested, a pipe can be used in one direction only. Therefore you have to create separate pipes for reading and writing. Since the example posted before was wrong, I deleted it and created a new, correct one:
#include<unistd.h>
#include<sys/wait.h>
#include<sys/prctl.h>
#include<signal.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
pid_t pid = 0;
int inpipefd[2];
int outpipefd[2];
char buf[256];
char msg[256];
int status;
pipe(inpipefd);
pipe(outpipefd);
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
// Child
dup2(outpipefd[0], STDIN_FILENO);
dup2(inpipefd[1], STDOUT_FILENO);
dup2(inpipefd[1], STDERR_FILENO);
//ask kernel to deliver SIGTERM in case the parent dies
prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGTERM);
//replace tee with your process
execl("/usr/bin/tee", "tee", (char*) NULL);
// Nothing below this line should be executed by child process. If so,
// it means that the execl function wasn't successfull, so lets exit:
exit(1);
}
// The code below will be executed only by parent. You can write and read
// from the child using pipefd descriptors, and you can send signals to
// the process using its pid by kill() function. If the child process will
// exit unexpectedly, the parent process will obtain SIGCHLD signal that
// can be handled (e.g. you can respawn the child process).
//close unused pipe ends
close(outpipefd[0]);
close(inpipefd[1]);
// Now, you can write to outpipefd[1] and read from inpipefd[0] :
while(1)
{
printf("Enter message to send\n");
scanf("%s", msg);
if(strcmp(msg, "exit") == 0) break;
write(outpipefd[1], msg, strlen(msg));
read(inpipefd[0], buf, 256);
printf("Received answer: %s\n", buf);
}
kill(pid, SIGKILL); //send SIGKILL signal to the child process
waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
}
The reason popen() and friends don't offer bidirectional communication is that it would be deadlock-prone, due to buffering in the subprocess. All the makeshift pipework and socketpair() solutions discussed in the answers suffer from the same problem.
Under UNIX, most commands cannot be trusted to read one line and immediately process it and print it, except if their standard output is a tty. The reason is that stdio buffers output in userspace by default, and defers the write() system call until either the buffer is full or the stdio stream is closed (typically because the program or script is about to exit after having seen EOF on input). If you write to such a program's stdin through a pipe, and now wait for an answer from that program's stdout (without closing the ingress pipe), the answer is stuck in the stdio buffers and will never come out - This is a deadlock.
You can trick some line-oriented programs (eg grep) into not buffering by using a pseudo-tty to talk to them; take a look at libexpect(3). But in the general case, you would have to re-run a different subprocess for each message, allowing to use EOF to signal the end of each message and cause whatever buffers in the command (or pipeline of commands) to be flushed. Obviously not a good thing performance-wise.
See more info about this problem in the perlipc man page (it's for bi-directional pipes in Perl but the buffering considerations apply regardless of the language used for the main program).
You want something often called popen2. Here's a basic implementation without error checking (found by a web search, not my code):
// http://media.unpythonic.net/emergent-files/01108826729/popen2.c
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include "popen2.h"
int popen2(const char *cmdline, struct popen2 *childinfo) {
pid_t p;
int pipe_stdin[2], pipe_stdout[2];
if(pipe(pipe_stdin)) return -1;
if(pipe(pipe_stdout)) return -1;
//printf("pipe_stdin[0] = %d, pipe_stdin[1] = %d\n", pipe_stdin[0], pipe_stdin[1]);
//printf("pipe_stdout[0] = %d, pipe_stdout[1] = %d\n", pipe_stdout[0], pipe_stdout[1]);
p = fork();
if(p < 0) return p; /* Fork failed */
if(p == 0) { /* child */
close(pipe_stdin[1]);
dup2(pipe_stdin[0], 0);
close(pipe_stdout[0]);
dup2(pipe_stdout[1], 1);
execl("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", cmdline, NULL);
perror("execl"); exit(99);
}
childinfo->child_pid = p;
childinfo->to_child = pipe_stdin[1];
childinfo->from_child = pipe_stdout[0];
close(pipe_stdin[0]);
close(pipe_stdout[1]);
return 0;
}
//#define TESTING
#ifdef TESTING
int main(void) {
char buf[1000];
struct popen2 kid;
popen2("tr a-z A-Z", &kid);
write(kid.to_child, "testing\n", 8);
close(kid.to_child);
memset(buf, 0, 1000);
read(kid.from_child, buf, 1000);
printf("kill(%d, 0) -> %d\n", kid.child_pid, kill(kid.child_pid, 0));
printf("from child: %s", buf);
printf("waitpid() -> %d\n", waitpid(kid.child_pid, NULL, 0));
printf("kill(%d, 0) -> %d\n", kid.child_pid, kill(kid.child_pid, 0));
return 0;
}
#endif
popen() can only open the pipe in read or write mode, not both. Take a look at this thread for a workaround.
In one of netresolve backends I'm talking to a script and therefore I need to write to its stdin and read from its stdout. The following function executes a command with stdin and stdout redirected to a pipe. You can use it and adapt it to your liking.
static bool
start_subprocess(char *const command[], int *pid, int *infd, int *outfd)
{
int p1[2], p2[2];
if (!pid || !infd || !outfd)
return false;
if (pipe(p1) == -1)
goto err_pipe1;
if (pipe(p2) == -1)
goto err_pipe2;
if ((*pid = fork()) == -1)
goto err_fork;
if (*pid) {
/* Parent process. */
*infd = p1[1];
*outfd = p2[0];
close(p1[0]);
close(p2[1]);
return true;
} else {
/* Child process. */
dup2(p1[0], 0);
dup2(p2[1], 1);
close(p1[0]);
close(p1[1]);
close(p2[0]);
close(p2[1]);
execvp(*command, command);
/* Error occured. */
fprintf(stderr, "error running %s: %s", *command, strerror(errno));
abort();
}
err_fork:
close(p2[1]);
close(p2[0]);
err_pipe2:
close(p1[1]);
close(p1[0]);
err_pipe1:
return false;
}
https://github.com/crossdistro/netresolve/blob/master/backends/exec.c#L46
(I used the same code in Can popen() make bidirectional pipes like pipe() + fork()?)
Use forkpty (it's non-standard, but the API is very nice, and you can always drop in your own implementation if you don't have it) and exec the program you want to communicate with in the child process.
Alternatively, if tty semantics aren't to your liking, you could write something like forkpty but using two pipes, one for each direction of communication, or using socketpair to communicate with the external program over a unix socket.
You can't use popen to use two-way pipes.
In fact, some OSs don't support two-way pipes, in which case a socket-pair (socketpair) is the only way to do it.
popen works for me in both directions (read and write)
I have been using a popen() pipe in both directions..
Reading and writing a child process stdin and stdout with the file descriptor returned by popen(command,"w")
It seems to work fine..
I assumed it would work before I knew better, and it does.
According posts above this shouldn't work.. which worries me a little bit.
gcc on raspbian (raspbery pi debian)
I'm trying to use a socketpair to have a parent process provide input to a child process that execs a different program (e.g., grep) and then read the resulting output. The program hangs in the while loop that reads the output from the program that the child execs.. The child dupes stdin and stdout on to its end of the socketpair and the parent and the child both close their unused end of the pair.
Interestingly, if the child execs a program that I wrote (OK, I ripped it off from Stevens Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment) everything works as expected. However, if the child execs grep (or some other standard program) the parent invariably hangs in trying to read the output. I can't tell if the input is not reaching grep or if the grep cannot determine the end of the input or if the output is somehow being lost.
Here's the code:
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cerrno>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void
sigpipe_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *siginfo, void * context) {
cout << "caught SIGPIPE\n";
pid_t pid;
if (errno == EPIPE) {
throw "SIGPIPE caught";
}
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
struct sigaction sa;
memset(&sa, '\0', sizeof(struct sigaction));
sa.sa_sigaction = sigpipe_handler;
sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO | SA_RESTART;
sigaction(SIGPIPE, &sa, NULL);
int sp[2];
socketpair(PF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, AF_UNIX, sp);
pid_t childPid = fork();
if (childPid == 0) {
close(sp[0]);
if (dup2(sp[1], STDIN_FILENO) != STDIN_FILENO) throw "dup2 error to stdin";
if (dup2(sp[1], STDOUT_FILENO) != STDOUT_FILENO) throw "dup2 error to stdout";
execl("/bin/grep", "grep", "-n", "namespace", (char*)NULL);
} else {
close(sp[1]);
char line[80];
int n;
try {
while (fgets(line, 80, stdin) != NULL) {
n = strlen(line);
if (write(sp[0], line, n) != n) {
throw "write error to pipe";
}
if ((n=read(sp[0], line, 80)) < 0) { // hangs here
throw "read error from pipe";
}
if (n ==0) {
throw "child closed pipe";
break;
}
line[n] = 0;
if (fputs(line, stdout) == EOF) {
throw "puts error";
}
if (ferror(stdin)) {
throw "fgets error on stdin";
}
exit(0);
}
} catch (const char* e) {
cout << e << endl;
}
int status;
waitpid(childPid, &status, 0);
}
}
Your code hangs as grep's output may be less than 80 bytes and you are issuing a blocking read on sp[0]. The proper way of doing this is by marking both sockets as non-blocking and selecting() over both of them.
You also forgot to close(sp[0]) before you wait(), which will leave your child process waiting for input.
You cannot achieve deadlock-free bidirectional communication with a subprocess using UNIX pipes or socketpairs, because you don't have control over buffering in the subprocess.
It just so happens that cat can be trusted to read one line and immediately print it, regardless of whether its standard output is a tty, a pipe or a socket. This is not the case with grep (and actually most programs using stdio), which will buffer output in-process (in the stdio buffers) and defer the write() call until either the buffer is full or the stdio stream is closed (typically because grep is about to exit after having seen EOF on input).
You can trick line-oriented programs (including grep) into not buffering by using a pseudo-tty instead; take a look at libexpect(3). But in the general case, you would have to re-run a different subprocess for each message, which allows to use EOF to signal the end of each message and cause whatever buffers in the command (or pipeline of commands) to be flushed.
See more info about this problem in the perlipc man page (it's for bi-directional pipes in Perl but the buffering considerations apply regardless of the language used for the main program).
It works fine with cat, so the problem is with grep. May be grep output behave differently when connected to something else than a terminal. Or it is not detecting the pattern for some reason.