Is there a way to make threads executing a C program to sleep at arbitrary points of execution?
I'm interested of testing the robustness of an implementation of distributed algorithm and I'd like to run different scenarios repeatedly so that threads would be suspended randomly.
(Adding sleeps to the code is not what I'm looking for.)
Thanks!
I'd like to run different scenarios repeatedly so that threads would be suspended randomly.
One way to achieve this (on a UNIX system) is to run the program under a debugger, which can suspend and resume threads at arbitrary points in time.
Debugger here doesn't mean GDB -- it could be any program utilizing ptrace to control the target.
Unfortunately writing such a control program / debugger from scratch is quite involved -- you'll need to implement a lot of low-level thread tracking.
Since you control the target program, you can cheat by making it create all the threads, then block them all before doing any work. Now the debugger program can attach all the threads, unblock them, and start suspending them at random.
Another alternative is to modify an existing debugger to do your bidding. This would be hard to do with GDB, but is probably easier with LLDB.
Related
I'm looking to develop a "secure" application and as a security mitigation, I'd like to be able to discover if a debugger (GDB, LLDB...) is in use on the currently running application; aborting if detected.
How can I detect monitoring of a statically-linked C application?
Walk the /proc tree
...
Just a crazy idea - load BPF program (assuming your binary has a capability to do it) to intercept ptrace syscall from process parent, and check if pid of process being traced match your process' pid, then you can either fail the syscall, preventing the debug, and send and event to userspace to stop your process.
Although it won't work for attached process, so you'd need to intercept ptrace from all processes, I'm not sure BPF allows it, don't remember.
Another crazy idea - tracer expects SIGTRAPs from tracee on each breakpoint/step, so you can catch this signal from your process, again using BPF, and do something about it. But again it is based on the assumption that tracer doesn't know about it.
You can't. Software can not detect if it runs in a perfect emulation or in the real world. And a emulator can be stopped, the software can be analyzed, variables can be changed, basically everything can be done what can be done in a debugger.
Lets say you want to detect if the parent process is a debugger. So you make a system call to get the parent PID? The debugger can intercept the system call and return any PID which does not have to be the real PID. You want to intercept every SIGTRAP so the debugger can't use it anymore? Well the debugger can just stop in this case and send the SIGTRAP also to your process.
You want to measure the time when you send SIGTRAP to know if the the process stops for a short time by the debugger for sending SIGTRAP so you know when there is a debugger? The debugger can replace your calls to get the time and return a fake time. Lets say you run on a Processor that has a instruction that returns the time, so no function call is needed to get the time. Now you can know that the time you are getting is real? No, the debugger can replace this instruction with a SIGTRAP instruction and return any time he wants or in case such a instruction does not exist, run the Software in a emulator that can be programmed in any way. Everything you can come up with to detect a debugger or emulator can be faked by the environment and you have 0 change to detect it.
The only way to stop debugging is by not giving the software to the customers but keep it in your hands. Make a cloud service and run the software on your server. In this case the customer can not debug your program since he does not run it and has no control over it. Except the customer can access the server or the data somehow, but that is a different story.
The operating system is able to determine how to arrange difference processes/threads onto different cpu cores, the os scheduler does the work well. So when do we really need to call functions like sched_setafficity() for a process, or pthread_setaffinity_np() for a pthread?
It doesn't seem to be able to raise any performance dramatically, if it can, then I suppose we need to re-write linux process scheduler right?
Just wish to know when do we need to call these functions, in my applications?
Thanks.
It's very helpful in some computationally intensive real time processes related to DSP(Digital Signal Processing).
Let's say One real time DSP related process PROCESS0 is running on core CPU0. Because of some scheduling algorithms CPU0 pre-emption need to happen such that process0 has to run on another CPU. This switching of realtime process is a overhead. Hence affinity. We direct to kernel that the process0 should run on CPU0.
As the title suggests, is there a way in C to detect when a user-level thread running on top of a kernel-level thread e.g., pthread has blocked (or about to block) for I/O?
My use case is as follows: I need to execute tasks in a multithreaded environment (on top of kernel threads e.g., pthreads). The tasks are basically user functions that can be synchronized and may use blocking operations within. I need to hide latency in my implementation. So, I am exploring the idea of implementing the tasks as user-level threads for better control of their execution context such that, when a task blocks or synchronizes, I context-switch to other ready tasks (i.e., implementing my own scheduler for the user-level threads). Consequently, almost the full use of the OS’s time quantum per kernel thread can be achieved.
There used to be code that did this, for example GNU pth. It's generally been abandoned because it just doesn't work very well and we have much better options now. You have two choices:
1) If you have OS help, you can use the OS mechanisms. Windows provides OS help for this, IOCP dispatching uses it.
2) If you have no OS help, then you have to convert all blocking operations into non-blocking ones that call your dispatcher rather than blocking. So, for example, if someone calls socket, you intercept that call and set the socket non-blocking. When they call read, you intercept that call and if they get a "would block" indication, you arrange to resume when the operation might succeed and schedule another thread.
You can look at GNU pth to see how you might make option 2 work. But be warned, GNU pth is full of reported bugs that have never been fixed since it was abandoned. It will give you an idea of how to implement things like mutexes and sleeps in a cooperative user-space threading environment. But don't actually use the code.
I have an system running embedded linux and it is critical that it runs continuously. Basically it is a process for communicating to sensors and relaying that data to database and web client.
If a crash occurs, how do I restart the application automatically?
Also, there are several threads doing polling(eg sockets & uart communications). How do I ensure none of the threads get hung up or exit unexpectedly? Is there an easy to use watchdog that is threading friendly?
You can seamlessly restart your process as it dies with fork and waitpid as described in this answer. It does not cost any significant resources, since the OS will share the memory pages.
Which leaves only the problem of detecting a hung process. You can use any of the solutions pointed out by Michael Aaron Safyan for this, but a yet easier solution would be to use the alarm syscall repeatedly, having the signal terminate the process (use sigaction accordingly). As long as you keep calling alarm (i.e. as long as your program is running) it will keep running. Once you don't, the signal will fire.
That way, no extra programs needed, and only portable POSIX stuff used.
The gist of it is:
You need to detect if the program is still running and not hung.
You need to (re)start the program if the program is not running or is hung.
There are a number of different ways to do #1, but two that come to mind are:
Listening on a UNIX domain socket, to handle status requests. An external application can then inquire as to whether the application is still ok. If it gets no response within some timeout period, then it can be assumed that the application being queried has deadlocked or is dead.
Periodically touching a file with a preselected path. An external application can look a the timestamp for the file, and if it is stale, then it can assume that the appliation is dead or deadlocked.
With respect to #2, killing the previous PID and using fork+exec to launch a new process is typical. You might also consider making your application that runs "continuously", into an application that runs once, but then use "cron" or some other application to continuously rerun that single-run application.
Unfortunately, watchdog timers and getting out of deadlock are non-trivial issues. I don't know of any generic way to do it, and the few that I've seen are pretty ugly and not 100% bug-free. However, tsan can help detect potential deadlock scenarios and other threading issues with static analysis.
You could create a CRON job to check if the process is running with start-stop-daemon from time to time.
use this script for running your application
#!/bin/bash
while ! /path/to/program #This will wait for the program to exit successfully.
do
echo “restarting” # Else it will restart.
done
you can also put this script on your /etc/init.d/ in other to start as daemon
I have two threads in my application. Is it possible to execute both the threads simultaneously without sleeping any thread?
You can run the threads parallel in your application especially if they are not waiting on each other for some inputs or conditions. For example: One thread may be parsing a file and other maybe playing a song in your application.
Generally OS takes care of the thread time slicing. So at the application level it would look like these threads are running parallel but the OS does the time slicing giving each thread certain execution time.
With multi-core processors/cores it is possible to run the threads parallel in realtime, however the OS decides which threads to run unless you specifically code at lower level to ensure which threads you want to run in parallel.
As others have mentioned, with multiple cores it is possible, but, it depends on how the OS decides to distribute the threads. You don't have any control, that I have seen, on dictating where each thread is ran.
For a really good tutorial, with some nice explanation and pictures you can look at this page, with code as to how to do multi-threading using the POSIX library.
http://www.pathcom.com/~vadco/parallel.html
The time slice for sleep is hard to see, so your best bet is to test it out, for example, have your two threads begin to count every millisecond, and see if the two are identical. If they are not, then at least one is going to sleep by the cpu.
Most likely both will go to sleep at some time, the test is to see how much of a difference there is between the two threads.
Once one thread blocks, either waiting to send data, or waiting to receive, it will be put to sleep so that other threads can run, so that the OS can continue to make certain everything is working properly.
C does not, itself, have any means to do multi-threaded code.
However, POSIX has libraries that allow you to work with threads in C.
One good article about this topic is How to write multi-threaded software in C and C++.
Yes, if you have multiple processors or multi-core processors. One thread will run in one core.