I have an strace log and want to execute the system calls line by line in a C program. Of course these system calls would be in the form of strings.
For example:
"openat(AT_FDCWD, "filename", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 4"
^This is one of the lines in my strace log. And I want to execute lines like these as system calls in my C program.
Is there a way to execute them? And also get the return values?
Related
I'm writing a C program that passes data to a Ruby script. The snippet of code in main.c is below. Whenever I run, I receive an error from execv() that there is no such file or directory. I guessed that I didn't add my file to the PATH but I did and I still ended up with the same outcome.
int temp = execv("#!/usr/bin/ruby xmlReader.rb", list);
if (spec == -1)
printf("%s\n", strerror(errno));
The exec*() family of system calls are very low level, they replace the executing program with the program mentioned as the first argument, so there's no return value unless there's an error. Upon success, your program is entirely gone, overlaid with the new program. It's a one-way program-execution chain.
It doesn't know how to run command lines, and exec() is usually usually is done after a fork() operation. You almost certainly don't want to do this.
What you probably want is int temp = system("ruby xmlreader.rb"); which will run the command line given in a subprocess (ultimately using fork and exec, though this aspect is invisible to you), wait for it to complete, then return the exit value to you.
Good morning;
Right now, I'm writing a program which makes a Montecarlo simulation of a physical process and then pipes the data generated to gnuplot to plot a graphical representation. The simulation and plotting work just fine; but I'm interested in printing an error message which informs the user that gnuplot is not installed. In order to manage this, I've tried the following code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
FILE *pipe_gnuplot;
int main()
{
pipe_gnuplot = _popen("gnuplot -persist", "w");
if (pipe_gnuplot==NULL)
{
printf("ERROR. INSTALL gnuplot FIRST!\n");
exit (1);
}
return 0;
}
But, instead of printing my error message, "gnuplot is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file" appears (the program runs on Windows). I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. According to _popen documentation, NULL should be returned if the pipe opening fails. Can you help me managing this issue? Thanks in advance and sorry if the question is very basic.
Error handling of popen (or _popen) is difficult.
popen creates a pipe and a process. If this fails, you will get a NULL result, but this occurs only in rare cases. (no more system resources to create a pipe or process or wrong second argument)
popen passes your command line to a shell (UNIX) or to the command processor (Windows). I'm not sure if you would get a NULL result if the system cannot execute the shell or command processor respectively.
The command line will be parsed by the shell or command processor and errors are handled as if you entered the command manually, e.g. resulting in an error message and/or a non-zero exit code.
A successful popen means nothing more than that the system could successfully start the shell or command processor. There is no direct way to check for errors executing the command or to get the exit code of the command.
Generally I would avoid using popen if possible.
If you want to program specifically for Windows, check if you can get better error handling from Windows API functions like CreateProcess.
Otherwise you could wrap your command in a script that checks the result and prints specific messages you can read and parse to distinguish between success and error. (I don't recommend this approach.)
Just to piggy-back on #Bodo's answer, on a POSIX-compatible system you can use wait() to wait for a single child process to return, and obtain its exit status (which would typically be 127 if the command was not found).
Since you are on Windows you have _cwait(), but this does not appear to be compatible with how _popen is implemented, as it requires a handle to the child process, which _popen does not return or give any obvious access to.
Therefore, it seems the best thing to do is to essentially manually re-implemented popen() by creating a pipe manually and spawning the process with one of the spawn[lv][p][e] functions. In fact the docs for _pipe() give an example of how one might do this (although in your case you want to redirect the child process's stdin to the write end of your pipe).
I have not tried writing an example though.
I have a .sh file, say B.sh, that calls goal.c (a Linux C file), and goal.c calls A.sh. The paths of goal.c and A.sh are different.
Upon being called by goal.c, A.sh produces some output which will be seen in the same directory as that of A.sh. But I do not see anything as a problem occurs in goal.c calling A.sh using the system command.
I used as the system ("Pathname of A.sh"), but a warning comes as, system() ignored and I feel the command is not executed.
How do I use the system command in this case?
I am trying to execute a program from within a C program (inside UNIX).
I have been given an executable ( the program requires a string input during execution and writes that input to another file called sample ) called exec and I want to execute it in program.c, but giving the string input through indirection.
For that I created a file as follows:
% vim input
I wrote the following inside the input file
content
Now in program.c,
#include<unistd.h>
int main()
{
const char* command = "./exec < input";
execvp(command, NULL);
return 0;
}
When I run the program, the content is not entered into the sample file.
But when I run it without indirection, i.e.
const char* command = "./exec";
then it works, and input entered in saved in sample file.
Can someone please tell what am I doing wrong in the indirection syntax.
Thanks.
The syntax you are using is supposed to be interpreted by a shell like bash, csh, ksh, etc.
The system call execvp only expects the path to the executable and a number of arguments, the shell is not invoked there.
To perform redirection in this manner, you'll have to use the dup2(2) system call before calling execvp:
int fd = open("input", O_RDONLY);
/* redirect standard input to the opened file */
dup2(fd, 0);
execvp("/path/to/exec", ...);
Of course, you'll need some additional error checking in a real-world program.
You can't do redirection like that with execvp. Use system() or start getting friendly with dup() and friends. You might google 'implementing redirection'.. you'll likely turn up plenty of examples of how shells (for example) handle this problem.
The exec(3) family of functions does not know anything about input redirection or parsing command lines: it tries to execute exactly the executable you give it. It's trying to search for an executable file with the name "./exec < input", which unsurprisingly does not exist.
One solution would be to use the system(3) function instead of exec. system invokes the user's shell (such as /bin/bash), which is capable of parsing the command line and doing appropriate redirections. But, system() is not as versatile as exec, so it may or may not be suitable for your needs.
The better solution is to do the input redirection yourself. What you need to do us use open(3) to open the file and dup2(3) to duplicate the file descriptor onto file descriptor 0 (standard input), and then exec the executable.
I am trying to redirect the output of a c program to file, even when it generates some errors because of problems with the input data. I can send the output but the error messages to a file.
Does somebody know how to do it?
From within C source code, you can redirect outputs using freopen():
General outputs:
freopen("myfile.txt", "w", stdout);
Errors:
freopen("myfile_err.txt", "w", stderr);
(This answer applies to bash shell, and similar flavors. You didn't specify your environment and this sort of question needs that detail.)
I assume you know about basic redirection with ">". To also capture STDERR in addition to STDOUT, use the following syntax:
command > file-name 2>&1
For some more background on standard streams and numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_streams#Standard_input_.28stdin.29
This depends on what you mean and what platform you are using. Very often you can accomplish this from the command line, which has been covered in another answer. If you use this method to accomplish this you should be aware that FILE * stderr is typically written immediately (unbuffered) while FILE * stdout may be buffered (usually line buffered) so you could end up with some of your error messages appearing to have been printed earlier than some other messages, but actually the other messages are just being printed late.
From within a C program you can also do something similar within the stdio system using freopen, which will effect the FILE *, so you could make fprintf(stderr, "fungus"); print to something besides what stderr normally would print to.
But if you want to know how to make a program redirect the actual file descriptors under a unix like system you need to learn about the dup and dup2 system calls. They allow you to duplicate a file descriptor.
int fd = open("some_file", O_WRONLY);
dup2(2,fd);
close(fd);
This code will make "some_file" the new stderr at the OS level. The dup2 call will close and replace file descriptor 2 (stderr, which is usually used by FILE * stderr but not necessarily if you call freopen(x,y,stderr) since that may make FILE *stderr use a different file descriptor).
This is how shell programs redirect input and output of programs. The open all of the files that the new program will need, fork, then the child uses dup2 to set up the files descriptors for the new program, then it closes any files that the new program won't need (usually just leaving 0, 1, and 2 open), and then uses one of the exec functions to become the program that the shell was told to run. (some of this isn't entirely accurate because some shells may rely on close on exe flags)
Using a simple linux command you can save the output into the file. here is a simple linux terminal command.
ls > file.txt
The output of this command will be stored into the file.
same as you can store the output of the program like this suppose, object file name is a, run the following command to save output in a file:
./a > file.txt