How can I retry sending (let's say using a while loop or something similar) in the following code that I have, whenever I have a timeout? I abridged some parts of my code.
I am not familiar with C error codes and error handling so I don't know where to catch/handle the error and what error code to look for.
sock = socket(create socket....)
if (sock < 0 ) {
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
servaddr initializations.....
sendto(sock, etc etc........);
struct timeval timeout;
timeout.tv_sec = 5;
timeout.tv_usec = 0;
if (setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO,&timeout,sizeof(timeout)) < 0) {
perror("Error");
}
addrlen = sizeof(servaddr);
if(recvfrom (sock, etc, etc......) < 0)
{
printf("revfrom failed.\n");
}
From man 7 socket:
SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO:
Specify the receiving or sending timeouts until reporting an
error. The argument is a struct timeval. If an input or output function blocks for this period of time, and data has been sent or received, the return value of that function will be the amount of data transferred; if no data has been transferred and the timeout has been reached, then -1 is returned with errno set to EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK, or EINPROGRESS (for connect(2)) just as if the socket was specified to be nonblocking. If the timeout is set to zero (the default), then the operation will never timeout. Timeouts only have effect for system calls that perform socket I/O (e.g., read(2), recvmsg(2), send(2), sendmsg(2)); timeouts have no effect for select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2), and so on.
So, in your case, the code to keep trying if the timeout is reached would look something like this:
struct timeval timeout = {.tv_sec = 5, .tv_usec = 0};
if (setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDTIMEO, &timeout, sizeof(timeout)) < 0) {
perror("setsockopt failed");
// Handle error
}
// ...
while (sendto(sock, /*...*/) == -1) {
if (errno != EAGAIN && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) {
// Some unexpected error happened.
perror("sendto failed");
}
// Otherwise it was a timeout, just continue trying.
}
Note that SO_SNDTIMEO is for sending, and SO_RCVTIMEO is for receiving. If you want to set both then do two setsockopt calls.
In any case, it seems to me like you are wasting your time with this. If you want to keep trying until you get data, then just don't bother doing any setsockopt, as the default behavior is to wait indefinitely until data is received:
If the timeout is set to zero (the default), then the operation will never timeout.
Related
I'm trying to set socket options for a client socket returned from the accept() function. But they are not getting set correctly.
My aim is to time out the client after a particular time of inactivity. But the server should still be able to accept other client connections.
Below is my code where I set the socket option. Can you please suggest what is wrong?
while ((new_sock_fd = accept(socket_fd, (struct sockaddr *) &cli_addr, &clilen)) > 0)
{
if (new_sock_fd < 0)
printf("Accept Error");
else
{
struct timeval timeout;
timeout.tv_sec = 10;
timeout.tv_usec = 0;
if (setsockopt(new_sock_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, (char *)&timeout, sizeof(timeout)) < 0)
error("setsockopt failed\n");
if (setsockopt(new_sock_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDTIMEO, (char *)&timeout, sizeof(timeout)) < 0)
error("setsockopt failed\n");
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, client_handler, (void *) (intptr_t)new_sock_fd); //intptr_t is big enough to hold the integer prt
}
}
My aim is to time out the client after a particular time of
inactivity. [...] can you please suggest what when wrong..?
I suspect what's wrong is that you're misunderstanding what SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO are intended to do. From the man page:
SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO Specify the receiving or sending timeouts
until reporting an error. The argument is a struct timeval. If an
input or output function blocks for this period of time, and data has
been sent or received, the return value of that function will be the
amount of data transferred; if no data has been transferred and the
timeout has been reached then -1 is returned with errno set to EAGAIN
or EWOULDBLOCK, or EINPROGRESS (for connect(2)) just as if the socket
was specified to be nonblocking. If the timeout is set to zero (the
default) then the operation will never timeout.
... but it sounds like what you want is for the TCP connection be automatically closed after a certain amount of time with no traffic on the TCP connection, which is not the same thing as forcing a call to send() or recv() to return after a specified amount of time.
If what you are looking for is a mechanism to close an idle TCP connection, you can implement that yourself by recording the current time whenever data is sent or received on the socket. At a later time (e.g. after send() or recv() times out), you can subtract your recorded last-traffic-seen-at-time from the current time; if the difference is greater than your idle-timeout value, call close() on the socket yourself.
I have a multi-threaded server (thread pool) that is handling a large number of requests (up to 500/sec for one node), using 20 threads. There's a listener thread that accepts incoming connections and queues them for the handler threads to process. Once the response is ready, the threads then write out to the client and close the socket. All seemed to be fine until recently, a test client program started hanging randomly after reading the response. After a lot of digging, it seems that the close() from the server is not actually disconnecting the socket. I've added some debugging prints to the code with the file descriptor number and I get this type of output.
Processing request for 21
Writing to 21
Closing 21
The return value of close() is 0, or there would be another debug statement printed. After this output with a client that hangs, lsof is showing an established connection.
SERVER 8160 root 21u IPv4 32754237 TCP localhost:9980->localhost:47530 (ESTABLISHED)
CLIENT 17747 root 12u IPv4 32754228 TCP localhost:47530->localhost:9980 (ESTABLISHED)
It's as if the server never sends the shutdown sequence to the client, and this state hangs until the client is killed, leaving the server side in a close wait state
SERVER 8160 root 21u IPv4 32754237 TCP localhost:9980->localhost:47530 (CLOSE_WAIT)
Also if the client has a timeout specified, it will timeout instead of hanging. I can also manually run
call close(21)
in the server from gdb, and the client will then disconnect. This happens maybe once in 50,000 requests, but might not happen for extended periods.
Linux version: 2.6.21.7-2.fc8xen
Centos version: 5.4 (Final)
socket actions are as follows
SERVER:
int client_socket;
struct sockaddr_in client_addr;
socklen_t client_len = sizeof(client_addr);
while(true) {
client_socket = accept(incoming_socket, (struct sockaddr *)&client_addr, &client_len);
if (client_socket == -1)
continue;
/* insert into queue here for threads to process */
}
Then the thread picks up the socket and builds the response.
/* get client_socket from queue */
/* processing request here */
/* now set to blocking for write; was previously set to non-blocking for reading */
int flags = fcntl(client_socket, F_GETFL);
if (flags < 0)
abort();
if (fcntl(client_socket, F_SETFL, flags|O_NONBLOCK) < 0)
abort();
server_write(client_socket, response_buf, response_length);
server_close(client_socket);
server_write and server_close.
void server_write( int fd, char const *buf, ssize_t len ) {
printf("Writing to %d\n", fd);
while(len > 0) {
ssize_t n = write(fd, buf, len);
if(n <= 0)
return;// I don't really care what error happened, we'll just drop the connection
len -= n;
buf += n;
}
}
void server_close( int fd ) {
for(uint32_t i=0; i<10; i++) {
int n = close(fd);
if(!n) {//closed successfully
return;
}
usleep(100);
}
printf("Close failed for %d\n", fd);
}
CLIENT:
Client side is using libcurl v 7.27.0
CURL *curl = curl_easy_init();
CURLcode res;
curl_easy_setopt( curl, CURLOPT_URL, url);
curl_easy_setopt( curl, CURLOPT_WRITEFUNCTION, write_callback );
curl_easy_setopt( curl, CURLOPT_WRITEDATA, write_tag );
res = curl_easy_perform(curl);
Nothing fancy, just a basic curl connection. Client hangs in tranfer.c (in libcurl) because the socket is not perceived as being closed. It's waiting for more data from the server.
Things I've tried so far:
Shutdown before close
shutdown(fd, SHUT_WR);
char buf[64];
while(read(fd, buf, 64) > 0);
/* then close */
Setting SO_LINGER to close forcibly in 1 second
struct linger l;
l.l_onoff = 1;
l.l_linger = 1;
if (setsockopt(client_socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, &l, sizeof(l)) == -1)
abort();
These have made no difference. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT -- This ended up being a thread-safety issue inside a queue library causing the socket to be handled inappropriately by multiple threads.
Here is some code I've used on many Unix-like systems (e.g SunOS 4, SGI IRIX, HPUX 10.20, CentOS 5, Cygwin) to close a socket:
int getSO_ERROR(int fd) {
int err = 1;
socklen_t len = sizeof err;
if (-1 == getsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, (char *)&err, &len))
FatalError("getSO_ERROR");
if (err)
errno = err; // set errno to the socket SO_ERROR
return err;
}
void closeSocket(int fd) { // *not* the Windows closesocket()
if (fd >= 0) {
getSO_ERROR(fd); // first clear any errors, which can cause close to fail
if (shutdown(fd, SHUT_RDWR) < 0) // secondly, terminate the 'reliable' delivery
if (errno != ENOTCONN && errno != EINVAL) // SGI causes EINVAL
Perror("shutdown");
if (close(fd) < 0) // finally call close()
Perror("close");
}
}
But the above does not guarantee that any buffered writes are sent.
Graceful close: It took me about 10 years to figure out how to close a socket. But for another 10 years I just lazily called usleep(20000) for a slight delay to 'ensure' that the write buffer was flushed before the close. This obviously is not very clever, because:
The delay was too long most of the time.
The delay was too short some of the time--maybe!
A signal such SIGCHLD could occur to end usleep() (but I usually called usleep() twice to handle this case--a hack).
There was no indication whether this works. But this is perhaps not important if a) hard resets are perfectly ok, and/or b) you have control over both sides of the link.
But doing a proper flush is surprisingly hard. Using SO_LINGER is apparently not the way to go; see for example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740481%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
https://www.google.ca/#q=the-ultimate-so_linger-page
And SIOCOUTQ appears to be Linux-specific.
Note shutdown(fd, SHUT_WR) doesn't stop writing, contrary to its name, and maybe contrary to man 2 shutdown.
This code flushSocketBeforeClose() waits until a read of zero bytes, or until the timer expires. The function haveInput() is a simple wrapper for select(2), and is set to block for up to 1/100th of a second.
bool haveInput(int fd, double timeout) {
int status;
fd_set fds;
struct timeval tv;
FD_ZERO(&fds);
FD_SET(fd, &fds);
tv.tv_sec = (long)timeout; // cast needed for C++
tv.tv_usec = (long)((timeout - tv.tv_sec) * 1000000); // 'suseconds_t'
while (1) {
if (!(status = select(fd + 1, &fds, 0, 0, &tv)))
return FALSE;
else if (status > 0 && FD_ISSET(fd, &fds))
return TRUE;
else if (status > 0)
FatalError("I am confused");
else if (errno != EINTR)
FatalError("select"); // tbd EBADF: man page "an error has occurred"
}
}
bool flushSocketBeforeClose(int fd, double timeout) {
const double start = getWallTimeEpoch();
char discard[99];
ASSERT(SHUT_WR == 1);
if (shutdown(fd, 1) != -1)
while (getWallTimeEpoch() < start + timeout)
while (haveInput(fd, 0.01)) // can block for 0.01 secs
if (!read(fd, discard, sizeof discard))
return TRUE; // success!
return FALSE;
}
Example of use:
if (!flushSocketBeforeClose(fd, 2.0)) // can block for 2s
printf("Warning: Cannot gracefully close socket\n");
closeSocket(fd);
In the above, my getWallTimeEpoch() is similar to time(), and Perror() is a wrapper for perror().
Edit: Some comments:
My first admission is a bit embarrassing. The OP and Nemo challenged the need to clear the internal so_error before close, but I cannot now find any reference for this. The system in question was HPUX 10.20. After a failed connect(), just calling close() did not release the file descriptor, because the system wished to deliver an outstanding error to me. But I, like most people, never bothered to check the return value of close. So I eventually ran out of file descriptors (ulimit -n), which finally got my attention.
(very minor point) One commentator objected to the hard-coded numerical arguments to shutdown(), rather than e.g. SHUT_WR for 1. The simplest answer is that Windows uses different #defines/enums e.g. SD_SEND. And many other writers (e.g. Beej) use constants, as do many legacy systems.
Also, I always, always, set FD_CLOEXEC on all my sockets, since in my applications I never want them passed to a child and, more importantly, I don't want a hung child to impact me.
Sample code to set CLOEXEC:
static void setFD_CLOEXEC(int fd) {
int status = fcntl(fd, F_GETFD, 0);
if (status >= 0)
status = fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, status | FD_CLOEXEC);
if (status < 0)
Perror("Error getting/setting socket FD_CLOEXEC flags");
}
Great answer from Joseph Quinsey. I have comments on the haveInput function. Wondering how likely it is that select returns an fd you did not include in your set. This would be a major OS bug IMHO. That's the kind of thing I would check if I wrote unit tests for the select function, not in an ordinary app.
if (!(status = select(fd + 1, &fds, 0, 0, &tv)))
return FALSE;
else if (status > 0 && FD_ISSET(fd, &fds))
return TRUE;
else if (status > 0)
FatalError("I am confused"); // <--- fd unknown to function
My other comment pertains to the handling of EINTR. In theory, you could get stuck in an infinite loop if select kept returning EINTR, as this error lets the loop start over. Given the very short timeout (0.01), it appears highly unlikely to happen. However, I think the appropriate way of dealing with this would be to return errors to the caller (flushSocketBeforeClose). The caller can keep calling haveInput has long as its timeout hasn't expired, and declare failure for other errors.
ADDITION #1
flushSocketBeforeClose will not exit quickly in case of read returning an error. It will keep looping until the timeout expires. You can't rely on the select inside haveInput to anticipate all errors. read has errors of its own (ex: EIO).
while (haveInput(fd, 0.01))
if (!read(fd, discard, sizeof discard)) <-- -1 does not end loop
return TRUE;
This sounds to me like a bug in your Linux distribution.
The GNU C library documentation says:
When you have finished using a socket, you can simply close its file
descriptor with close
Nothing about clearing any error flags or waiting for the data to be flushed or any such thing.
Your code is fine; your O/S has a bug.
include:
#include <unistd.h>
this should help solve the close(); problem
I have a server that sends data to a client every 5 seconds. I want the client to block on read() until the server sends some data and then print it. I know read () is blocking by default. My problem is that my client is not blocking on read(). This is very odd and this does not seem to be a normal issue.
My code prints "Nothing came back" in an infinite loop. I am on a linux machine, programming in c. My code snippet is below. Please advice.
while(1)
{
n = read(sockfd, recvline, MAXLINE);
if ( n > 0)
{
recvline[n] = 0;
if (fputs(recvline, stdout) == EOF)
printf("fputs error");
}
else if(n == 0)
printf("Nothing came back");
else if (n < 0)
printf("read error");
}
return;
There may be several cause and several exceptions are possible at different place:
check socket where you create:
sockfd=socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM,0);
if (sockfd==-1) {
perror("Create socket");
}
You and also enable blocking mode explicitly before use it:
// Set the socket I/O mode: In this case FIONBIO
// enables or disables the blocking mode for the
// socket based on the numerical value of iMode.
// If iMode = 0, blocking is enabled;
// If iMode != 0, non-blocking mode is enabled.
ioctl(sockfd, FIONBIO, &iMode);
or you can use setsockopt as below:
struct timeval t;
t.tv_sec = 0;
tv_usec = 0;
setsockopt(
sockfd, // Socket descriptor
SOL_SOCKET, // To manipulate options at the sockets API level
SO_RCVTIMEO,// Specify the receiving or sending timeouts
const void *(&t), // option values
sizeof(t)
);
Check Read function call (Reason of bug)
n = read(sockfd, recvline, MAXLINE);
if(n < 0){
perror("Read Error:");
}
Also check server code!:
May your server send some blank(non-printable, null, enter) charter(s). And your are unaware of this. Bug you server code too.
Or your server terminated before your client can read.
One more interesting thing, Try to understand:
When you call N write() at server its not necessary there should be N read() call at other side.
What Greg Hewgill already wrote as a comment: An EOF (that is, an explicit stop of writing, be it via close() or via shutdown()) will be communicated to the receiving side by having recv() return 0. So if you get 0, you know that there won't be any data and you can terminate the reading loop.
If you had non-blocking enabled and there are no data, you will get -1 and errno will be set to EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK.
What is the value of MAXLINE?
If the value is 0, then it will return 0 as well.
Otherwise, as Grijesh Chauhan mention, set it explcitly to blocking.
Or, you may also consider using recv() where blocking and non-blocking can be specified.
It has the option, MSG_WAITALL, where it will block until all bytes arrived.
n = recv(sockfd, recvline, MAXLINE, MSG_WAITALL);
I am having a problem with sendto.
I have a receiver who receives UPD packets with recvfrom and then replies to the sender using sendto.
Unfortunately, I am getting errno 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable). I am using two sockets.
The first packet is actually sent but not the ones afterwards:
sendto :: Success
error: 0.
sendto :: Resource temporarily unavailable
error: 11.
sendto :: Resource temporarily unavailable
...
This is an extract of my code:
int sockfd, sockSend;
if ((sockfd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0)
perror("socket");
if ((sockSend = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0)
perror("socket");
if (fcntl(sockfd, F_SETOWN, getpid()) < 0) {
perror("fcntl");
}
if (fcntl(sockfd, F_SETFL, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK | FASYNC) < 0) {
perror("fcntl");
}
if (bind(sockfd, (struct sockaddr *) &serv_addr, sizeof(serv_addr))
< 0)
perror("bind");
And in a SIGIO handler:
len = sizeof(recv_addr);
char buffer[payload];
bzero(buffer, payload);
n = recvfrom(sockfd, buffer, payload, MSG_DONTWAIT, (struct sockaddr *)&recv_addr, &len);
while (n > 0) {
sprintf(response, "%d\n%d\n%d\n", items, target_buf, pb_sp);
sendto(sockSend, response, strlen(response), 0, (struct sockaddr *) &recv_addr, sizeof(recv_addr));
// sleep(1);
perror("sendto :");
printf("error: %d.\n", errno);
}
Could this issue come because the port is still hot, and I need to wait before reusing it? I've tried to change port but it hasn't helped.
Update: If the sleep(1) is commented out, then the packets actually get send!
Thanks a lot for your help.
The error you are getting:
EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK: The socket is marked nonblocking and the requested operation would block. POSIX.1-2001 allows either error to be returned for this case, and does not require these constants to have the same value, so a portable application should check for both possibilities.
You set the socket to non-blocking (O_NONBLOCK). The socket is still busy sending the previous message. You cannot send another until the first has finished sending. That's why sleeping helped.
Don't set it to non-blocking, or try again after select says you can.
If you have to set the socket to non-blocking, you can do it safely (and only?) using select:
select() and pselect() allow a program to monitor multiple file descriptors, waiting until one or more of the file descriptors become "ready" for some class of I/O operation (e.g., input possible). A file descriptor is considered ready if it is possible to perform the corresponding I/O operation (e.g., read(2)) without blocking.
I'm trying to make process that takes number of requests each second, on each request new thread is created. Each thread then opens socket connection to address (http port) sends HEAD requests, gets response and closes socket.
Problem I'm having comes when i put more then 3 requests per second, after some time i get error in send() part of function, i keep getting Connection Refused. If I input more requests per second i get errors earlier. If i put only 2 requests per second i don't get errors at all. I suspect that I'm running out of some resource but i can't find which.
Here is basic structure of code
//declarations
socketfd = socket(servinfo->ai_family,servinfo->ai_socktype,servinfo->ai_protocol);
arg = fcntl(socketfd, F_GETFL, NULL)) < 0);
arg |= O_NONBLOCK;
fcntl(socketfd, F_SETFL, arg)
if((conn = connect(socketfd, servinfo->ai_addr, servinfo->ai_addrlen)) < 0)
{
if(errno == EINPROGRESS)
{
do
{
tv.tv_sec = CONNECT_TIMEOUT;
tv.tv_usec = 0;
FD_ZERO(&myset);
FD_SET(socketfd, &myset);
if((res = select(socketfd+1, NULL, &myset, NULL, &tv) > 0))
{
if( (arg = fcntl(socketfd, F_GETFL, NULL)) < 0) {
perror("fcntl get 2");
}
arg &= (~O_NONBLOCK);
if( fcntl(socketfd, F_SETFL, arg) < 0) {
perror("fcntl set 2");
}
char szBuf[4096];
std::string htmlreq = "HEAD / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost:";
htmlreq += info->hostName;
htmlreq += "\r\n\r\n";
if((conn = send(socketfd,htmlreq.c_str(),htmlreq.size(),0)) == -1 && errno != EINTR)
{
perror("send");
close(socketfd);
return;
}
if((conn = recv(socketfd,szBuf,sizeof(szBuf)+1,0)) < 0 && errno != EINTR)
{
perror("recv");
close(socketfd);
return ;
}
close(socketfd);
// do stuff with data
break;
}
else
{
//timeout
break;
}
}while(1);
}
else
{
perror("connect");
close(socketfd);
return;
}
}
I removed some error checking from start, what i get as output is "Send: Connection Refused" after some time. I'd appreciate some pointers to what part could be causing problems, platform is ubuntu linux. I'd also be glad to post other parts of code if needed. Tnx in advance.
The resource you're probably running out of is on the server you're connecting to. The connection is being refused by the computer you're connecting to because it's either:
Configure to limit the number of connections per second ( based on some criteria )
Or the server you're connecting to is under too much load for some reason and can't take any more connections.
Since you always get the error on the third connection it could be that the server you're connecting to limits the number of connections on a per IP basis.
Edit1
You're trying to do a non-blocking connect? Now that I look at it closer it sounds like your problem is with the select, as in select is returning that the socket is readable before it's actually connected and then you're calling send. One of the things to watch out for on non-blocking connects is that the socket becomes both readable and writeable on error. Which means you need to check for both after select returns otherwise you may be missing whatever the actual error is and seeing the send error instead.
This is from Stevens UNP:
FD_ZERO(&rset);
FD_SET(sockfd, &rset);
wset = rset;
tval.tv_sec = nsec;
tval.tv_usec = 0;
if ( (n = Select(sockfd+1, &rset, &wset, NULL,
nsec ? &tval : NULL)) == 0) {
close(sockfd); /* timeout */
errno = ETIMEDOUT;
return(-1);
}
if (FD_ISSET(sockfd, &rset) || FD_ISSET(sockfd, &wset)) {
len = sizeof(error);
if (getsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, &error, &len) < 0)
return(-1); /* Solaris pending error */
} else
err_quit("select error: sockfd not set");
done:
Fcntl(sockfd, F_SETFL, flags); /* restore file status flags */
if (error) {
close(sockfd); /* just in case */
errno = error;
return(-1);
}
return(0);
There are quite a few problems in your code.
First you set the socket to non blocking. I don't understand why you do this. The connect function has an internal timeout and so won't block.
Another problem of your code is that the first if statement will skip the instruction block if the connection immediately succeeds ! Which may happen.
You apparently want to first send the HEAD message. There is no real need to make this one non blocking unless you expect the remote server or the network to be very slow and want a time out on it. In this case the select with non blocking socket would make sens.
Once you send the HEAD message, you expect some data in response that you collect with the recv function. Be aware that this function call may return before the whole data sent is received. You need an independent way to determine that all the data sent has been received. Would the server close the connection ? This would detected by the recv function returning 0.
So the recv should be wrapped into a loop where you append to received data to some buffer or a file and quit when recv returns 0. Use a non blocking socket if you want to add a timeout on this recv operation which may indeed block.
But first try without timeouts to be sure it works at full speed without blocking as your current version.
I suspect the initial connect is slow because of name and IP adresse resolution, and gets faster in subsequent calls because data is cached.