I've got a cmd line app in C under Linux that has to run another process, the problem is that the child process prints a lot in a comand line and the whole app gets messy.
Is it possible to disallow child process to print anything in cmd line from parent process? It would be very helpful to for example being able to define a command that allows or disallows printing by a child process.
There's the time-honoured tradition of just redirecting the output to the bit bucket(a), along the lines of:
system("runChild >/dev/null 2>&1");
Or, if you're doing it via fork/exec, simply redirect the file handles using dup2 between the fork and exec.
It won't stop a determined child from outputting to your standard output but it will have to be very tricky to do that.
(a) I'm not usually a big fan of that, just in case something goes wrong. I'd prefer to redirect it to a real file which can be examined later if need be (and deleted eventually if not).
Read Advanced Linux Programming then syscalls(2).
On recent Linux, every executable is in ELF format (except init or systemd; play with pstree(1) or proc(5)) is running in a process started by fork(2) (or clone(2)...) and execve(2).
You might use cleverly dup2(2) with open(2) to redirect STDOUT_FILENO to /dev/null (see null(4), stdout(3), fileno(3))
I've got a cmd line app in C under Linux that has to run another process, the problem is that the child process prints a lot in a comand line
I would instead provide a way to selectively redirect the child process' output. You could use program arguments or environment variables (see getenv(3) and/or environ(7)) to provide such an option to your user.
An example of such a command program starting and redirecting subprocesses and redirecting them is your GCC compiler (see gcc(1); it runs cc1 and as(1) and ld(1)...). Consider downloading and studying its source code.
Study also -for inspiration- the source code of some shell (e.g. sash), or write your own one.
Related
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 know how to get the stdout into a file using dup/dup2 system calls, but how do I get the entire output that would be normally shown on my terminal(including the prompt that says my username along with the $ symbol and the current working directory) to a file?
Yes you can, but this may be difficult in many details (depending on your expert level). For the shell to behave normally (I would mean exactly as in a terminal), then it needs to interact with a terminal (special system object). So you need to create a program that behave like a terminal, this what pseudo-terminals devices (/dev) are intended for. Read documentation about this to implement it but roughly, your application should behave like the user so should be connected to the slave side of the pseudo-terminal, and the shell to the master side of the pseudo-terminal. Then you can easily log real inputs made by the user and catch outputs made by the shell.
Can't comment cause of low reputation.
I would say there is no way to do that inside a code in C. Instead, you could use bash for example to redirect everything to a file, and leave the code in C as it is.
In this way you have all the info you want to save: prompt, current directory, call to the program (including flags), and of course the output of the program.
Well, you can do:
-For bash prompt PS1: Echo expanded PS1 (in case you want it expanded, if not there is a simple way to do it just echong PS1)
- For executed command: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/169259/how-to-capture-command-line-input-into-logfile-and-execute-it-at-the-same-time
- Standard output and error output: Redirect stderr and stdout in a Bash script
And that's all you want to capture, I think.
Look up the script command in Unix systems. If you want to capture all keyboard and std in/out for a command, use the script executable. If you want to see how it's done, look up the source.
I am trying to write a program , which does a fork and exec a child process and executes it in the back ground .
One approach I would see is to redirect the output to /dev/NULL file and come back to my main program . Any other ideas ?
After a process is started, shell has no more control on process file descriptors so you can not silence it by a shell command i.e. terminal has its stdin, stdout and stderr bound to the terminal and you cannot do anything about it without re-gaining control over that terminal.
There is a tool called retty how you can use it can be seen at this link retty this tool is used to attach processes running on terminals
Beside you can also use the built in disown command to disown the process which will prevent from sending a SIGHUP signal to the program when the shell exits
This link can be helpful Link to a similar problem
Here I have one command which is like interactive mode:
obex_test -b $BD_ADDR $CH_NUM
This command is from a script but I want to run this command through a system call in a C program.
obex_test is nothing but obex file transfer library.
Here I want to receive a file from remote device to local device through bluetooth.
This is the manual page of obex_test
Please can anybody tell me how can I put my C program in interactive mode like this command, and I want to use this command also.
I used popen(command,"r") but its not useful; it does not take input from the user.
If I used "w" mode then I don't know what happens; I directly get a message like >Unknown Command. It's the error this command gives when we give different options. So it's taken something as a write mode.
You could have two pairs of pipes (created with the pipe(2) system call); one for data from your program to obex_test's stdin and one from obex_test's stdout to your program. Then you would fork and execve... Beware of deadlocks (your program blocked on writing to obex_test stdin when its output pipe is full and blocking it), you might need to call poll(2) or select(2)...
However, as it man pages explain, "obex_test is a test application for the libopenobex library". So why don't call directly functions inside this libopenobex library, which you would link to your program?
You can use the system command. Check the manual page for more details.
For e.g. system( "obex_test -b 172.16.7.1 1234" );
There are several ways of redirecting the output of a child process:
using freopen(3)
using dup(3)
using popen(3)
...
What should one pick if all is wanted is to execute a child process and have it output saved in a given file, pretty much like the ls > files.txt works?
What is normally used by shells?
You can discover what your favorite shell uses by strace(1)ing your shell.
In one terminal:
echo $$
In another terminal:
strace -o /tmp/shell -f -p [PID from the first shell]
In the first terminal again:
ls > files.txt
In the second terminal, ^C your strace(1) command and then edit the /tmp/shell output file to see what system calls it made to do the redirection.
freopen(3) manipulates the C standard IO FILE* pointers. All this will be thrown away on the other side of the execve(2) call, because it is maintained in user memory. You could use this after the execve(2) call, but that would be awkward to use generically.
popen(3) opens a single unidirectional pipe(7). This is useful, but extremely limited -- you get either the standard output descriptor or the standard input descriptor. This would fail for something like ls | grep foo | sort where both input and output must be redirected. So this is a poor choice.
dup2(2) will manage file descriptors -- a kernel-implemented resource -- so it will persist across execve(2) calls and you can set up as many file descriptors as you need, which is nice for ls > /tmp/output 2> /tmp/error or handling both input and output: ls | sort | uniq.
There is another mechanism: pty(7) handling. The forkpty(3), openpty(3), functions can manage a new pseudo-terminal device created specifically to handle another program. The Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment, 2nd edition book has a very nice pty example program in its source code, though if you're having trouble understanding why this would be useful, take a look at the script(1) program -- it creates a new pseudo-terminal and uses it to record all input and output to and from programs and stores the transcript to a file for later playback or documentation. You can also use it to script actions in interactive programs, similar to expect(1).
I would expect to find dup2() used mainly.
Neither popen() nor freopen() is designed to handle redirections such as 3>&7. Up to a point, dup() could be used, but the 3>&7 example shows where dup() starts to creak; you'd have to ensure that file descriptors 4, 5, and 6 are open (and 7 is not) before it would handle what dup2() would do without fuss.