I'm trying to open a file with the parent then, send it to the child. I want the child to look for specific word and send the line from the text file back to the parent.
With my Code right now, I can send the text file to the children but I cant check the file and send it back to the parent.
int fd[2];
pid_t cpid;
pipe(fd);
if ((cpid = fork()) == -1)
{
cout << "ERROR" << endl;
exit(1);
}
// child process
if (cpid == 0)
{
// don't need the write-side of this
close(fd[WRITE_FD]);
std::string s;
char ch;
while (read(fd[READ_FD], &ch, 1) > 0)
{
if (ch != 0)
s.push_back(ch);
else
{
//std::cout << s << " "; //'\n'; //print the txt
while(getline(s, ch, '.'))
{
printf("%s\n", toSend.c_str());
}
s.clear();
}
}
// finished with read-side
close(fd[READ_FD]);
}
// parent process
else
{
// don't need the read-side of this
close(fd[READ_FD]);
fstream fileWords ("words.txt");
string toSend;
while (fileWords >> toSend)
{
// send word including terminator
write(fd[WRITE_FD], toSend.c_str(), toSend.length()+1);
}
// finished with write-side
close(fd[WRITE_FD]);
wait(NULL);
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
Pipes are intended for unidirectional communication. If you try to use a pipe for bidirectional communication, it's almost certain that programs will end up reading their own output back into themselves (or similar undesired behavior), rather than successfully communicating with each other. There's two similar approaches that would work for bidirectional communication:
Create two pipes, and give each process the read end of one and the write end of the other. Then there's no ambiguity about where data will end up.
Use a socket instead of a pipe. The socketpair function makes this easy: just do socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, fd) in place of pipe(fd). Sockets work just like pipes, but are bidirectional (writes to either of the FD's always get read by the other FD).
Related
I'm writing a custom shell where I try to add support for input, output redirections and pipes just like standard shell. I stuck at point where I cannot do input redirection, but output redirection is perfectly working. My implementation is something like this (only related part), you can assume that (string) input is non-empty
void execute() {
... // stuff before execution and initialization of variables
int *fds;
std::string content;
std::string input = readFromAFile(in_file); // for input redirection
for (int i = 0; i < commands.size(); i++) {
fds = subprocess(commands[i]);
dprintf(fds[1], "%s", input.data()); // write to write-end of pipe
close(fds[1]);
content += readFromFD(fds[0]); // read from read-end of pipe
close(fds[0]);
}
... // stuff after execution
}
int *subprocess(std::string &cmd) {
std::string s;
int *fds = new int[2];
pipe(fds);
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == -1) {
std::cerr << "Fork failed.";
}
if (pid == 0) {
dup2(fds[1], STDOUT_FILENO);
dup2(fds[0], STDIN_FILENO);
close(fds[1]);
close(fds[0]);
system(cmd.data());
exit(0); // child terminates
}
return fds;
}
My thought is subprocess returns a pipe (fd_in, fd_out) and parent can write to write-end and read-from read-end afterwards. However when I try an input redirection something like sort < in.txt, the program just hangs. I think there is a deadlock because one waiting other to write, and other one to read, however, after parent writes to write-end it closes, and then read from read-end. How should I consider this case ?
When I did a bit of searching, I saw this answer, which my original thinking was similar except that in the answer it mentions creating two pipes. I did not quite understand this part. Why do we need two separate pipes ?
I have following piece of code where I am using the pipe for two way read and write between parent and child process.
From what I have read, if I dont use O_NONBLOCK, the read should block until the data is written to the pipe from the other side.
However, I notice that the read on the parent side did not block. I know that, since I am debugging in gdb, I have put a sleep as a first statement inside the child.
Why did the read() by parent not block here? Also, is there anything else that I need to do to synchronize the read/write as below between the two processes?
typedef struct
{
int x;
int y;
}PayLoad;
PayLoad pl;
bool b = false;
int pipe_fds[2];
void p(int i, int j)
{
pl.x = i;
pl.y = j;
pipe(pipe_fds);
pid_t cpid = fork();
if (cpid == 0) // child process
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(100)); // just for debugging
close(pipe_fds[1]);
read(pipe_fds[0], &pl, sizeof(Payload));
//... do some processing on read data
close(pipe_fds[0]);
write(pipe_fds[1], &b, sizeof(bool));
close(pipe_fds[1]);
}
else if (cpid > 0) // parent process
{
close(pipe_fds[0]);
write(pipe_fds[1], &pl, sizeof(Payload));
close(pipe_fds[1]);
read(pipe_fds[0], &b, sizeof(bool)); <------ did not block!
close(pipe_fds[0]);
}
}
If O_NONBLOCK is set, read() will return a -1 and set errno to [EAGAIN].
The real problem is you are closing the file descriptors before using them. For example, in the child process, you are closing pipe_fds[1] and you are using it for writing some value. In the parent process, you are closing pipe_fds[0] and you are using it for reading some value. Once the process closes the file descriptor, the process shouldn't use it for reading or writing. Usually pipe concept is one process (either parent or child) will write using one of file descriptors created by pipe and the other process (either parent or child) will read the data using another file descriptor.
Hi I am working on Linux and I am trying to create a GUI app to go with my executable I have made.
For some reason it unexpectedly ends. There is no error message, it just says in the Qt console window it unexpectedly ended with exit code 0.
Can someone please have a look at it for me. I am working on Linux.
I will also paste the code here.
void MainWindow::on_pushButton_clicked()
{
QString stringURL = ui->lineEdit->text();
ui->labelError->clear();
if(stringURL.isEmpty() || stringURL.isNull()) {
ui->labelError->setText("You have not entered a URL.");
stringURL.clear();
return;
}
std::string cppString = stringURL.toStdString();
const char* cString = cppString.c_str();
char* output;
//These arrays will hold the file id of each end of two pipes
int fidOut[2];
int fidIn[2];
//Create two uni-directional pipes
int p1 = pipe(fidOut); //populates the array fidOut with read/write fid
int p2 = pipe(fidIn); //populates the array fidIn with read/write fid
if ((p1 == -1) || (p2 == -1)) {
printf("Error\n");
return;
}
//To make this more readable - I'm going to copy each fileid
//into a semantically more meaningful name
int parentRead = fidIn[0];
int parentWrite = fidOut[1];
int childRead = fidOut[0];
int childWrite = fidIn[1];
//////////////////////////
//Fork into two processes/
//////////////////////////
pid_t processId = fork();
//Which process am I?
if (processId == 0) {
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
//CHILD PROCESS - inherits file id's from parent/
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
::close(parentRead); //Don't need these
::close(parentWrite); //
//Map stdin and stdout to pipes
dup2(childRead, STDIN_FILENO);
dup2(childWrite, STDOUT_FILENO);
//Exec - turn child into sort (and inherit file id's)
execlp("htmlstrip", "htmlstrip", "-n", NULL);
} else {
/////////////////
//PARENT PROCESS/
/////////////////
::close(childRead); //Don't need this
::close(childWrite); //
//Write data to child process
//char strMessage[] = cString;
write(parentWrite, cString, strlen(cString));
::close(parentWrite); //this will send an EOF and prompt sort to run
//Read data back from child
char charIn;
while ( read(parentRead, &charIn, 1) > 0 ) {
output = output + (charIn);
printf("%s", output);
}
::close(parentRead); //This will prompt the child process to quit
}
return;
}
EDIT:: DEBUGGING RESULTS
I ran the debugger and this is the error I received:
The inferior stopped because it received a signal from the Operating System.
Signal name : SIGSEGV
Signal meaning : Segmentation fault
You haven't initialized the "output" variable. On the last lines of your code, you do this:
while ( read(parentRead, &charIn, 1) > 0 ) {
output = output + (charIn);
printf("%s", output);
}
Which will do nasty things, since you are adding a byte read from your child process, to the output variable, which is a pointer that contains garbage, and then printing the contents of the "output" variable's address as a string. You probably want "output" to be a std::string, that way your code could make sense:
std::string output;
/* ... */
while ( read(parentRead, &charIn, 1) > 0 ) {
output += (charIn);
}
std::cout << output;
Once you have read all the data your child process has generated, you can write it to stdout.
EDIT: since you want to set the contents of "output" to a QPlainTextEdit, you can use QPlainTextEdit::setPlainText:
while ( read(parentRead, &charIn, 1) > 0 ) {
output += (charIn);
}
plainTextEdit.setPlainText(output.c_str());
Using Linux and C++, I would like a function that does the following:
string f(string s)
{
string r = system("foo < s");
return r;
}
Obviously the above doesn't work, but you get the idea. I have a string s that I would like to pass as the standard input of a child process execution of application "foo", and then I would like to record its standard output to string r and then return it.
What combination of Linux syscalls or POSIX functions should I use?
I'm using Linux 3.0 and do not need the solution to work with older systems.
The code provided by eerpini does not work as written. Note, for example, that the pipe ends that are closed in the parent are used afterwards. Look at
close(wpipefd[1]);
and the subsequent write to that closed descriptor. This is just transposition, but it shows this code has never been used. Below is a version that I have tested. Unfortunately, I changed the code style, so this was not accepted as an edit of eerpini's code.
The only structural change is that I only redirect the I/O in the child (note the dup2 calls are only in the child path.) This is very important, because otherwise the parent's I/O gets messed up. Thanks to eerpini for the initial answer, which I used in developing this one.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#define PIPE_READ 0
#define PIPE_WRITE 1
int createChild(const char* szCommand, char* const aArguments[], char* const aEnvironment[], const char* szMessage) {
int aStdinPipe[2];
int aStdoutPipe[2];
int nChild;
char nChar;
int nResult;
if (pipe(aStdinPipe) < 0) {
perror("allocating pipe for child input redirect");
return -1;
}
if (pipe(aStdoutPipe) < 0) {
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
perror("allocating pipe for child output redirect");
return -1;
}
nChild = fork();
if (0 == nChild) {
// child continues here
// redirect stdin
if (dup2(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ], STDIN_FILENO) == -1) {
exit(errno);
}
// redirect stdout
if (dup2(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE], STDOUT_FILENO) == -1) {
exit(errno);
}
// redirect stderr
if (dup2(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE], STDERR_FILENO) == -1) {
exit(errno);
}
// all these are for use by parent only
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
// run child process image
// replace this with any exec* function find easier to use ("man exec")
nResult = execve(szCommand, aArguments, aEnvironment);
// if we get here at all, an error occurred, but we are in the child
// process, so just exit
exit(nResult);
} else if (nChild > 0) {
// parent continues here
// close unused file descriptors, these are for child only
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
// Include error check here
if (NULL != szMessage) {
write(aStdinPipe[PIPE_WRITE], szMessage, strlen(szMessage));
}
// Just a char by char read here, you can change it accordingly
while (read(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_READ], &nChar, 1) == 1) {
write(STDOUT_FILENO, &nChar, 1);
}
// done with these in this example program, you would normally keep these
// open of course as long as you want to talk to the child
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_READ]);
} else {
// failed to create child
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
}
return nChild;
}
Since you want bidirectional access to the process, you would have to do what popen does behind the scenes explicitly with pipes. I am not sure if any of this will change in C++, but here is a pure C example :
void piped(char *str){
int wpipefd[2];
int rpipefd[2];
int defout, defin;
defout = dup(stdout);
defin = dup (stdin);
if(pipe(wpipefd) < 0){
perror("Pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if(pipe(rpipefd) < 0){
perror("Pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if(dup2(wpipefd[0], 0) == -1){
perror("dup2");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if(dup2(rpipefd[1], 1) == -1){
perror("dup2");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if(fork() == 0){
close(defout);
close(defin);
close(wpipefd[0]);
close(wpipefd[1]);
close(rpipefd[0]);
close(rpipefd[1]);
//Call exec here. Use the exec* family of functions according to your need
}
else{
if(dup2(defin, 0) == -1){
perror("dup2");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if(dup2(defout, 1) == -1){
perror("dup2");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
close(defout);
close(defin);
close(wpipefd[1]);
close(rpipefd[0]);
//Include error check here
write(wpipefd[1], str, strlen(str));
//Just a char by char read here, you can change it accordingly
while(read(rpipefd[0], &ch, 1) != -1){
write(stdout, &ch, 1);
}
}
}
Effectively you do this :
Create pipes and redirect the stdout and stdin to the ends of the two pipes (note that in linux, pipe() creates unidirectional pipes, so you need to use two pipes for your purpose).
Exec will now start a new process which has the ends of the pipes for stdin and stdout.
Close the unused descriptors, write the string to the pipe and then start reading whatever the process might dump to the other pipe.
dup() is used to create a duplicate entry in the file descriptor table. While dup2() changes what the descriptor points to.
Note : As mentioned by Ammo# in his solution, what I provided above is more or less a template, it will not run if you just tried to execute the code since clearly there is a exec* (family of functions) missing, so the child will terminate almost immediately after the fork().
Ammo's code has some error handling bugs. The child process is returning after dup failure instead of exiting. Perhaps the child dups can be replaced with:
if (dup2(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ], STDIN_FILENO) == -1 ||
dup2(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE], STDOUT_FILENO) == -1 ||
dup2(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE], STDERR_FILENO) == -1
)
{
exit(errno);
}
// all these are for use by parent only
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdinPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_READ]);
close(aStdoutPipe[PIPE_WRITE]);
I have roughly created the following code to call a child process:
// pipe meanings
const int READ = 0;
const int WRITE = 1;
int fd[2];
// Create pipes
if (pipe(fd))
{
throw ...
}
p_pid = fork();
if (p_pid == 0) // in the child
{
close(fd[READ]);
if (dup2(fd[WRITE], fileno(stdout)) == -1)
{
throw ...
}
close(fd[WRITE]);
// Call exec
execv(argv[0], const_cast<char*const*>(&argv[0]));
_exit(-1);
}
else if (p_pid < 0) // fork has failed
{
throw
}
else // in th parent
{
close(fd[WRITE]);
p_stdout = new std::ifstream(fd[READ]));
}
Now, if the subprocess does not write too much to stdout, I can wait for it to finish and then read the stdout from p_stdout. If it writes too much, the write blocks and the parent waits for it forever.
To fix this, I tried to wait with WNOHANG in the parent, if it is not finished, read all available output from p_stdout using readsome, sleep a bit and try again. Unfortunately, readsome never reads anything:
while (true)
{
if (waitid(P_PID, p_pid, &info, WEXITED | WNOHANG) != 0)
throw ...;
else if (info.si_pid != 0) // waiting has succeeded
break;
char tmp[1024];
size_t sizeRead;
sizeRead = p_stdout->readsome(tmp, 1024);
if (sizeRead > 0)
s_stdout.write(tmp, sizeRead);
sleep(1);
}
The question is: Why does this not work and how can I fix it?
edit: If there is only child, simply using read instead of readsome would probably work, but the process has multiple children and needs to react as soon as one of them terminates.
As sarnold suggested, you need to change the order of your calls. Read first, wait last. Even if your method worked, you might miss the last read. i.e. you exit the loop before you read the last set of bytes that was written.
The problem might be is that ifstream is non-blocking. I've never liked iostreams, even in my C++ projects, I always liked the simplicity of C's stdio functions (i.e. FILE*, fprintf, etc). One way to get around this is to read if the descriptor is readable. You can use select to determine if there is data waiting on that pipe. You're going to need select if you are going to read from multiple children anyway, so might as well learn it now.
As for a quick isreadable function, try something like this (please note I haven't tried compiling this):
bool isreadable(int fd, int timeoutSecs)
{
struct timeval tv = { timeoutSecs, 0 };
fd_set readSet;
FD_ZERO(&readSet);
return select(fds, &readSet, NULL, NULL, &tv) == 1;
}
Then in your parent code, do something like:
while (true) {
if (isreadable(fd[READ], 1)) {
// read fd[READ];
if (bytes <= 0)
break;
}
}
wait(pid);
I'd suggest re-writing the code so that it doesn't call waitpid(2) until after read(2) calls on the pipe return 0 to signify end-of-file. Once you get the end-of-file return from your read calls, you know the child is dead, and you can finally waitpid(2) for it.
Another option is to de-couple the reading from the reaping even further and perform the wait calls in a SIGCHLD signal handler asynchronously to the reading operations.