Our application is using mshtml. That dll is causing our application to exit ungracefully due to well known problems in mshtml since we don't install newer browsers on users' machines. We just use what they have already.
The SetUnhandledExceptionFilter() does not handle this, nor does a try/catch block around the calls into mshtml. The exception filter does catch other exceptions.
The exception settings are /EHa.
When I remote debug the crash I see:
unhandled exception - access violation
In mshtml but if I don't attach to the process with a debugger, the application just exits.
What do we need to do to catch the exception?
Edit:
This is an old version of IE6.
Seems to be that MSHTML functions passes necessary data to a separate thread. That separate thread processes your request and the exception takes place. That's why you cannot catch exception via try/catch block. You should check it in the debugger. If that is true the only way to catch exceptions from other threads is to set hooks for TerminateThread and TerminateProcess functions. Check out CApiHook class by Jeffrey Richter for that purpose(or other implementations). But it will make your program to be incompatible with /NXCOMPAT compiler flag.
Your second option is to install all important OS updates.
Almost there. It's not SetUnhandledExceptionFilter() but AddVectoredExceptionHandler you want. With that said, you can get the first shot at this exception.
Of course I'm wondering what you're going to do afterwards. TerminateThread is probably the only option you have, but that may very well deadlock MSHTML. So that needs killing too.
Related
I want that when and if the program will fail than it will be caught at this handler in order to do some guard notifications.
Is there a bottom handler or list of handlers that I need to register in order to be sure that a program cannot crash without passing through my handler?
Running on ubuntu and solution needed only to ubuntu
I need all kind of failure like exception memory allocation ...
The simple answer is that there is no single point where you can handle all errors in the program. You can add a try/catch (...) at in main to handle exceptions that occur after main is entered and before it completes. You can also add a handler for terminate in C++. Then depending on the OS you will also need to handle other situations differently (invalid memory references can be handled in unix/linux by handling SIG_SEGV, but that will not work in Windows --AFAIK; some other errors might trigger different signals that could or not be handled...) Further than that, there might be errors that still get unnoticed (say an invalid memory access that happens to hit a valid memory address... the program will be incorrect, but the error might go undetected)
C++ does not run in a virtual sandbox, thus there is nothing built-in to the language to catch this. You can certainly build one yourself (for example using exceptions), but it's up to your code to construct this from the foundation up.
The platform you're running on may have something you can use though. For example in Windows there is SetUnhandledExceptionFilter.
Of course all of this still depends on what it means to "crash".
On process startup, call fork. Use the parent to monitor the child. If it encounters a fatal error, the process will go away. You can detect this and do whatever you need to do when that happens. If the child wishes to terminate normally, it can simply kill its parent before terminating.
For a normal program exit you can register a handler with std::atexit().
For a program exit because of uncaught exceptions/... you can register a handler with std::set_terminate. If by "exception memory allocation" you mean a std::bad_alloc exception, than this handler should be triggered.
In Linux You need to respond to SIGABRT Signal. Your callback will be called whenever your app gets SIGABRT signal
signal(SIGABRT, &callback);
There are different Signals for different Scenarios such as SIGSEGV, SIGBUS that you ned to hook. you better hook them in different callbacks and check which error goes into what. because one error might come due to multiple problems.
No. If the process is killed with a SIGKILL, for example, no handler will be run.
P.S. FYI, this has nothing to do with the SPOF.
You can put a try/catch(...) block at the top level to catch all exceptions. But there are other ways for the program to be terminated and the ways of catching these aren't portable. On Unix-based systems you'll have to create signal handlers but even those won't stop kill -9.
I have a DLL that's being injected into very old, buggy and now unsupported by it's developer application. Sometimes that application crashes, and I need some way to catch literally all unhandled exceptions (from DLL) that may occur to save data and only then allow the app to crash. How can I achieve that?
For now, there is an external debugger for that purpose, but it's just too slow and also buggy to keep it that way.
You have to start a new process which hosts the DLL. If the DLL is going to crash, it's going to bring down the process, whether you like it or not. Sure, you could attempt to catch an exception or something like that, but if the exception is being thrown, that means memory is corrupted. It is better to crash catastrophically than to have the program continuing to run in an inconsistent state.
The windows shell is a program which actually does this -- it launches some plugins in a surrogate process, so that if the plugin crashes, it doesn't bring down the whole shell. You'd need to use interprocess communication to communicate between yourself and the surrogate you start.
I have an exception handler set up using SetUnhandledExceptionFilter, which works fine. However, if I throw an exception from within OpenMP code, I get the standard "the application crashed" window and the handler is not called -- however, I can attach a debugger just fine and see that the call stack is ending with _CxxThrowException and continues into KernelBase.dll!RaiseException. I know that an OpenMP program which throws exceptions inside the parallel regions is wrong, but I'd still like to get a crash dump. How can I get my exception handler get called in this case?
Should be possible, especially as the debugger manges to get an "Unhandled exception" window, when attached to the application after the crash (i.e. I can get a nice stack trace and stuff.) This is on Windows 7 with VC++ 2010.
(Eventually, each thread actually calls my exception handler. If it crashes, and I select 'Debug', and then continue on each unhandled exception, the handler eventually gets called and it also manages to write out a meaningful minidump. Wtf?)
Interesting. Going out on a limb, I'll wager that the OpenMP concurrency runtime doesn't honor the SetUnhandledExceptionFilter (which will work for "standard" threads), and isn't integrated into this feature of Structured Exception Handling.
Note this warning from the MSDN page on Exception Handling in the Concurrency Runtime
To prevent abnormal termination of your application, make sure that your code handles exceptions when it calls into the runtime. Also handle exceptions when you call into external code that uses the Concurrency Runtime, for example, a third-party library.
Perhaps you can try wrapping your OpenMP stuff in the style of exception handling outlined above, and then see if you can re-package and throw it (outside of OpenMP context) to get caught by the filter?
In MSVC, how can I make any unhandled C++ exception (std::runtime_error, for instance) crash my release-compiled program so that it generates a dump with the full stack from the exception throw location?
I have installed NTSD in the AeDebug registry and can generate good dumps for things like memory access violation, so the matter here comes down to crashing the program correctly, I suppose.
Thanks in advance.
I finally cracked it down.
Use the set_terminate() function to register a handler for every thread
In you main function(), make it impossible for external DLLs (event Windows') to successfully call SetUnhandledExceptionFilter(). A great article on how to do that here: http://www.debuginfo.com/articles/debugfilters.html#overwrite .
As for the handle itself, it is quite straightforward:
void Terminate()
{
OutputDebugStringA("Terminate\r\n");
RaiseException(0xE0000010, EXCEPTION_NONCONTINUABLE, 0, 0);
}
Calling RaiseException() like the above example is enough to make the process crash and produce my mush desired dump.
Just so you know, the problem I was having was:
The IPHelper Windows API loads dynamically another Windows DLL
This DLL uses Windows own version of the C runtime (MSVCRT instead of MSVCRT90)
The new C++ runtime calls SetUnhandledExceptionFilter() on startup to catch C++ exceptions. Since the latest filter for C++ exceptions is the one who gets to call the handle set by set_terminate(), my handle wasn't called.
SetUnhandledExceptionFilter and DebugBreak should probably do the job.
Edit: oops, rereading, you want to deal with uncaught C++ exceptions. That would be a bit trickier to do well -- by the time you (normally) get wind of a C++ exception, it's already unwound the stack back to the level of the handler. You don't have any real way to know an exception has been thrown until a catch is invoked, but by then the stack has been unwound.
Look into using the Windows Debugger.
Windbg – wraps KD and NTSD with a decent UI.
Also check out ADPlus that comes with the Windows Debugger.
Here is a good place to start learning how to use it.
In my C++ application i use an activeX component that runs its own thread (or several I don't know). Sometimes this components throws exceptions. I would like to catch these exceptions and do recovery instead of my entire application crashing. But since I don't have access to its source code or thread I am unsure how it would be done.
The only solution I can think of is to run it in its own process. Using something like CreateProcess and then CreateRemoteThread, unsure how it could be implemented.
Any suggestion on how to go about solving this?
If the ActiveX component is launching its own threads, then there isn't a lot that you can do. You could set a global exception handler and try to swallow exceptions, but this creates a high likelihood that your program state will become corrupted and lead to bizarre "impossible" crashes down the road.
Running the buggy component in a separate process is the most robust solution, as you'll be able to identify and recover from fatal errors without compromising your own program state.
Try setting up an exception filter with SetUnhandledExceptionFilter().