Why i am getting continuous SIGSEGV in the below C code - c

I am trying to learn Signals. I know invalid memory access will cause segfault. So, I register a signal handler for SIGSEGV signal.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
void sighandler(int signum)
{
printf("%s\n", __func__);
}
int main()
{
int *a = NULL;
signal(SIGSEGV, sighandler);
*a = 5;
return 0;
}
Running this code, I am continuously getting SIGSEGV Signals. I thought i should only get the signal once. Can you guys explain why I am getting signals continuously

After the SEGV handler finishes, the instruction that triggered re-executes. Since you didn't do anything to prevent the next execution from faulting, you get SEGV again, ad infinitum.
See more in this answer.

The signal handler is returning to instruction that triggered it namely *a = 5 which is causing it to loop.
You have several problems including the use of printf inside a signal handler.
There are safe and not-safe ways of dealing with this
NOTES
Using signal(2) is not recommended for signal handling in general.
Handling SIGSEGV is even more complicated because of the way the signal semantics work. Quoting from the man page:
The only portable use of signal() is to set a signal's disposition to SIG_DFL or SIG_IGN. The semantics when using signal()
to establish a signal handler vary across
systems (and POSIX.1 explicitly permits this variation); do not use it for this purpose.
POSIX.1 solved the portability mess by specifying sigaction(2), which provides explicit control of the semantics when a
signal handler is invoked; use that interface instead of signal().
So the first thing you should do is use sigaction.
Next, handling SIGSEGV is a weird beast:
How to write a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV?
and
Does linux allow any system call to be made from signal handlers?
have good answers and get into specific details. There are external links in some of the answers given there.
How to do this using signal(2)
Well :-) let's say you want to use signal(2) and you want to play with this in a weird way....
You can use sigjmpset and siglongjmp.
sigjmpset marks a point where siglongjmp should jump to. The first time sigjmpset is called (to set the point) it returns 0. When siglongjmp jumps to it, (which means it gets called again as a result of the long jump), it returns 1.
Which means we can do this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
sigjmp_buf env;
int sigsav;
void sighandler(int signum)
{
const char msg[] = "Skipping signal\n";
write(2, msg, sizeof(msg));
siglongjmp(env, sigsav);
}
int main()
{
int *a = NULL;
signal(SIGSEGV, sighandler);
if(!sigsetjmp(env, sigsav)) {
printf("setting value of a\n");
*a = 5;
}
else {
printf("returned to sigsetjmp, but now we skip it!\n");
}
return 0;
}

Related

Make a signal switch the action of another signal

I am working in C language. I am trying to catch and process two different signals:
INT: when this signal is caught, action1 or action2 is triggered
QUIT: when this signal is caught, the INT signal action is switched (action1->action2 or action2->action1)
Default INT signal action is set to action1.
In my code,switchaction function is well triggered by QUIT signal, but has no effect on INT signal action :s
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef void (*sighandler_t)(int);
sighandler_t prev_handler;
void action1(int n){
printf("First message\n");
}
void action2(int n){
printf("Second message\n");
}
void switchaction(int n){
printf("Switch action\n");
prev_handler=action2;
}
int main() {
prev_handler = action1;
printf("PID: %d\n", getpid());
prev_handler= signal(SIGINT,prev_handler);
signal(SIGQUIT,switchaction);
travail(); //This function never ends
}
Would you have any idea of what is wrong in my code ?
Thanks,
Yann
Your syscall
prev_handler= signal(SIGINT,prev_handler);
is setting the signal handler to the value of prev_handler variable at the moment you are executing the signal syscall. Changing (after) the value of prev_handler does not change the handling of SIGINT signal. In other words, signal (and most C calls) have a call by value semantics. If you call signal once, the kernel keep the same handler (till you call signal again with the same signal number, or till you call sigaction(2) etc...).
Read carefully (assuming you are on Linux) the signal(7) and signal(2) man pages.
I would instead define
volatile sig_atomic_t howhandle;
void switchaction(int n __attribute__((unused))) {
if (howhandle)
howhandle = 0;
else
howhandle = 1;
}
void handleint (int n) {
if (howhandle) action1(n); else action2(n);
}
and install just
signal(SIGINT, handleint);
signal(SIGQUIT, switchaction);
Also, notice that calling printf inside a handler is incorrect (because printf is not an async-signal-safe function, but you call it in action1, called by handleint...). Read again signal(7)
You should have some other volatile sig_atomic_t variables and test (and clear them) at appropriate places inside your travail working function, but set them only in your signal handlers. Setting a volatile sig_atomic_t variable is pretty much the only thing you can do reliably inside a signal handler.
If you accept Linux specific solutions learn more about signalfd(2) (and use also poll(2)...). Read also Advanced Linux Programming.

Can a C program continue execution after a signal is handled?

I'm new at signal handling in Unix through C and I have been looking at some tutorials on it (out of pure interest).
My questions is, is it possible to continue execution of a program past the point where a signal is handled?
I understand that the signal handling function does the cleanup but in the spirit of exception handling (such as in C++), is it possible for that signal to be handled in the same fashion and for the program to continue running normally?
At the moment catch goes in an infinite loop (presumably a way to quit would be to call exit(1) ).
My intention would be for b to be assigned 1 and for the program to finish gracefully (if that is possible of course).
Here's my code:
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int a = 5;
int b = 0;
void catch(int sig)
{
printf("Caught the signal, will handle it now\n");
b = 1;
}
int main(void)
{
signal(SIGFPE, catch);
int c = a / b;
return 0;
}
Also, as C is procedural, how come the signal handler declared before the offending statement is actually called after the latter has executed?
And finally, in order for the handling function to do its clean up properly, all the variables than need to be cleaned up in the event of an exception need to be declared prior to the function, right?
Thanks in advance for your answers and apologies if some of the above is very obvious.
Yes, that's what signal handlers are for. But some signals need to be handled specially in order to allow the program to continue (e.g. SIGSEGV, SIGFPE, …).
See the manpage of sigaction:
According to POSIX, the behavior of a process is undefined after it ignores a SIGFPE, SIGILL, or SIGSEGV signal that was not
generated by kill(2) or raise(3). Integer division by zero has undefined result. On some architectures it will generate a
SIGFPE signal. (Also dividing the most negative integer by -1 may generate SIGFPE.) Ignoring this signal might lead to an
endless loop.
Right now, you are ignoring the signal, by not doing anything to prevent it from happening (again). You need the execution context in the signal handler and fix it up manually, which involves overwriting some registers.
If SA_SIGINFO is specified in sa_flags, then sa_sigaction (instead of
sa_handler) specifies the signal-handling function for signum. This
function receives the signal number as its first argument, a pointer
to a siginfo_t as its second argument and a pointer to a ucontext_t
(cast to void *) as its third argument. (Commonly, the handler
function doesn't make any use of the third argument. See
getcontext(2) for further information about ucontext_t.)
The context allows access to the registers at the time of fault and needs to be changed to allow your program to continue. See this lkml post. As mentioned there, siglongjmp might also be an option. The post also offers a rather reusable solution for handling the error, without having to make variables global etc.:
And because you handle it youself, you have any flexibility you want
to with error handling. For example, you can make the fault handler
jump to some specified point in your function with something like
this:
__label__ error_handler;
__asm__("divl %2"
:"=a" (low), "=d" (high)
:"g" (divisor), "c" (&&error_handler))
... do normal cases ...
error_handler:
... check against zero division or overflow, so whatever you want to ..
Then, your handler for SIGFPE needs only to do something like
context.eip = context.ecx;
If you know what you are doing, you can set the instruction pointer to point right after the offending instruction. Below is my example for x86 (32bit and 64bit). Don't try at home or in real products !!!
#define _GNU_SOURCE /* Bring REG_XXX names from /usr/include/sys/ucontext.h */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <ucontext.h>
static void sigaction_segv(int signal, siginfo_t *si, void *arg)
{
ucontext_t *ctx = (ucontext_t *)arg;
/* We are on linux x86, the returning IP is stored in RIP (64bit) or EIP (32bit).
In this example, the length of the offending instruction is 6 bytes.
So we skip the offender ! */
#if __WORDSIZE == 64
printf("Caught SIGSEGV, addr %p, RIP 0x%lx\n", si->si_addr, ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RIP]);
ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RIP] += 6;
#else
printf("Caught SIGSEGV, addr %p, EIP 0x%x\n", si->si_addr, ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_EIP]);
ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_EIP] += 6;
#endif
}
int main(void)
{
struct sigaction sa;
memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
sa.sa_sigaction = sigaction_segv;
sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
sigaction(SIGSEGV, &sa, NULL);
/* Generate a seg fault */
*(int *)NULL = 0;
printf("Back to normal execution.\n");
return 0;
}
In general, yes, execution continues after the handler returns. But if the signal was caused by a hardware error (such as a floating point exception or a segmentation fault), you have no way of undoing that error, and so your program will be terminated regardless.
In other words, you have to distinguish between signals and things that cause signals. Signals by themselves are perfectly fine and handlable, but they don't always let you fix errors that cause signals.
(Some signals are special, such as ABRT and STOP, in the sense that even if you just raise such a signal manually with kill, you still can't "prevent its effects". And of course KILL cannot even be handled at all.)

Why can't I ignore SIGSEGV signal?

Here is my code,
#include<signal.h>
#include<stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char ** argv)
{
char *p=NULL;
signal(SIGSEGV,SIG_IGN); //Ignoring the Signal
printf("%d",*p);
printf("Stack Overflow"); //This has to be printed. Right?
return 0;
}
While executing the code, i'm getting segmentation fault. I ignored the signal using SIG_IGN. So I shouldn't get Segmentation fault. Right? Then, the printf() statement after printing '*p' value must executed too. Right?
Your code is ignoring SIGSEGV instead of catching it. Recall that the instruction that triggered the signal is restarted after handling the signal. In your case, handling the signal didn't change anything so the next time round the offending instruction is tried, it fails the same way.
If you intend to catch the signal change this
signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN);
to this
signal(SIGSEGV, sighandler);
You should probably also use sigaction() instead of signal(). See relevant man pages.
In your case the offending instruction is the one which tries to dereference the NULL pointer.
printf("%d", *p);
What follows is entirely dependent on your platform.
You can use gdb to establish what particular assembly instruction triggers the signal. If your platform is anything like mine, you'll find the instruction is
movl (%rax), %esi
with rax register holding value 0, i.e. NULL. One (non-portable!) way to fix this in your signal handler is to use the third argument signal your handler gets, i.e. the user context. Here is an example:
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define __USE_GNU
#include <ucontext.h>
int *p = NULL;
int n = 100;
void sighandler(int signo, siginfo_t *si, ucontext_t* context)
{
printf("Handler executed for signal %d\n", signo);
context->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RAX] = &n;
}
int main(int argc,char ** argv)
{
signal(SIGSEGV, sighandler);
printf("%d\n", *p); // ... movl (%rax), %esi ...
return 0;
}
This program displays:
Handler executed for signal 11
100
It first causes the handler to be executed by attempting to dereference a NULL address. Then the handler fixes the issue by setting rax to the address of variable n. Once the handler returns the system retries the offending instruction and this time succeeds. printf() receives 100 as its second argument.
I strongly recommend against using such non-portable solutions in your programs, though.
You can ignore the signal but you have to do something about it. I believe what you are doing in the code posted (ignoring SIGSEGV via SIG_IGN) won't work at all for reasons which will become obvious after reading the bold bullet.
When you do something that causes the kernel to send you a SIGSEGV:
If you don't have a signal handler, the kernel kills the process and that's that
If you do have a signal handler
Your handler gets called
The kernel restarts the offending operation
So if you don't do anything abut it, it will just loop continuously. If you do catch SIGSEGV and you don't exit, thereby interfering with the normal flow, you must:
fix things such that the offending operation doesn't restart or
fix the memory layout such that what was offending will be ok on the
next run
Another option is to bracket the risky operation with setjmp/longjmp, i.e.
#include <setjmp.h>
#include <signal.h>
static jmp_buf jbuf;
static void catch_segv()
{
longjmp(jbuf, 1);
}
int main()
{
int *p = NULL;
signal(SIGSEGV, catch_segv);
if (setjmp(jbuf) == 0) {
printf("%d\n", *p);
} else {
printf("Ouch! I crashed!\n");
}
return 0;
}
The setjmp/longjmp pattern here is similar to a try/catch block. It's very risky though, and won't save you if your risky function overruns the stack, or allocates resources but crashes before they're freed. Better to check your pointers and not indirect through bad ones.
Trying to ignore or handle a SIGSEGV is the wrong approach. A SIGSEGV triggered by your program always indicates a bug. Either in your code or code you delegate to. Once you have a bug triggered, anything could happen. There is no reasonable "clean-up" or fix action the signal handler can perform, because it can not know where the signal was triggered or what action to perform. The best you can do is to let the program fail fast, so a programmer will have a chance to debug it when it is still in the immediate failure state, rather than have it (probably) fail later when the cause of the failure has been obscured. And you can cause the program to fail fast by not trying to ignore or handle the signal.

Coming back to life after Segmentation Violation

Is it possible to restore the normal execution flow of a C program, after the Segmentation Fault error?
struct A {
int x;
};
A* a = 0;
a->x = 123; // this is where segmentation violation occurs
// after handling the error I want to get back here:
printf("normal execution");
// the rest of my source code....
I want a mechanism similar to NullPointerException that is present in Java, C# etc.
Note: Please, don't tell me that there is an exception handling mechanism in C++ because I know that, dont' tell me I should check every pointer before assignment etc.
What I really want to achieve is to get back to normal execution flow as in the example above. I know some actions can be undertaken using POSIX signals. How should it look like? Other ideas?
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <ucontext.h>
void safe_func(void)
{
puts("Safe now ?");
exit(0); //can't return to main, it's where the segfault occured.
}
void
handler (int cause, siginfo_t * info, void *uap)
{
//For test. Never ever call stdio functions in a signal handler otherwise*/
printf ("SIGSEGV raised at address %p\n", info->si_addr);
ucontext_t *context = uap;
/*On my particular system, compiled with gcc -O2, the offending instruction
generated for "*f = 16;" is 6 bytes. Lets try to set the instruction
pointer to the next instruction (general register 14 is EIP, on linux x86) */
context->uc_mcontext.gregs[14] += 6;
//alternativly, try to jump to a "safe place"
//context->uc_mcontext.gregs[14] = (unsigned int)safe_func;
}
int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
struct sigaction sa;
sa.sa_sigaction = handler;
int *f = NULL;
sigemptyset (&sa.sa_mask);
sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
if (sigaction (SIGSEGV, &sa, 0)) {
perror ("sigaction");
exit(1);
}
//cause a segfault
*f = 16;
puts("Still Alive");
return 0;
}
$ ./a.out
SIGSEGV raised at address (nil)
Still Alive
I would beat someone with a bat if I saw something like this in production code though, it's an ugly, for-fun hack. You'll have no idea if the segfault have corrupted some of your data, you'll have no sane way of recovering and know that everything is Ok now, there's no portable way of doing this. The only mildly sane thing you could do is try to log an error (use write() directly, not any of the stdio functions - they're not signal safe) and perhaps restart the program. For those cases you're much better off writing a superwisor process that monitors a child process exit, logs it and starts a new child process.
You can catch segmentation faults using a signal handler, and decide to continue the excecution of the program (at your own risks).
The signal name is SIGSEGV.
You will have to use the sigaction() function, from the signal.h header.
Basically, it works the following way:
struct sigaction sa1;
struct sigaction sa2;
sa1.sa_handler = your_handler_func;
sa1.sa_flags = 0;
sigemptyset( &sa1.sa_mask );
sigaction( SIGSEGV, &sa1, &sa2 );
Here's the prototype of the handler function:
void your_handler_func( int id );
As you can see, you don't need to return. The program's execution will continue, unless you decide to stop it by yourself from the handler.
"All things are permissible, but not all are beneficial" - typically a segfault is game over for a good reason... A better idea than picking up where it was would be to keep your data persisted (database, or at least a file system) and enable it to pick up where it left off that way. This will give you much better data reliability all around.
See R.'s comment to MacMade answer.
Expanding on what he said, (after handling SIGSEV, or, for that case, SIGFPE, the CPU+OS can return you to the offending insn) here is a test I have for division by zero handling:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
static jmp_buf context;
static void sig_handler(int signo)
{
/* XXX: don't do this, not reentrant */
printf("Got SIGFPE\n");
/* avoid infinite loop */
longjmp(context, 1);
}
int main()
{
int a;
struct sigaction sa;
memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(struct sigaction));
sa.sa_handler = sig_handler;
sa.sa_flags = SA_RESTART;
sigaction(SIGFPE, &sa, NULL);
if (setjmp(context)) {
/* If this one was on setjmp's block,
* it would need to be volatile, to
* make sure the compiler reloads it.
*/
sigset_t ss;
/* Make sure to unblock SIGFPE, according to POSIX it
* gets blocked when calling its signal handler.
* sigsetjmp()/siglongjmp would make this unnecessary.
*/
sigemptyset(&ss);
sigaddset(&ss, SIGFPE);
sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &ss, NULL);
goto skip;
}
a = 10 / 0;
skip:
printf("Exiting\n");
return 0;
}
No, it's not possible, in any logical sense, to restore normal execution following a segmentation fault. Your program just tried to dereference a null pointer. How are you going to carry on as normal if something your program expects to be there isn't? It's a programming bug, the only safe thing to do is to exit.
Consider some of the possible causes of a segmentation fault:
you forgot to assign a legitimate value to a pointer
a pointer has been overwritten possibly because you are accessing heap memory you have freed
a bug has corrupted the heap
a bug has corrupted the stack
a malicious third party is attempting a buffer overflow exploit
malloc returned null because you have run out of memory
Only in the first case is there any kind of reasonable expectation that you might be able to carry on
If you have a pointer that you want to dereference but it might legitimately be null, you must test it before attempting the dereference. I know you don't want me to tell you that, but it's the right answer, so tough.
Edit: here's an example to show why you definitely do not want to carry on with the next instruction after dereferencing a null pointer:
void foobarMyProcess(struct SomeStruct* structPtr)
{
char* aBuffer = structPtr->aBigBufferWithLotsOfSpace; // if structPtr is NULL, will SIGSEGV
//
// if you SIGSEGV and come back to here, at this point aBuffer contains whatever garbage was in memory at the point
// where the stack frame was created
//
strcpy(aBuffer, "Some longish string"); // You've just written the string to some random location in your address space
// good luck with that!
}
Call this, and when a segfault will occur, your code will execute segv_handler and then continue back to where it was.
void segv_handler(int)
{
// Do what you want here
}
signal(SIGSEGV, segv_handler);
There is no meaningful way to recover from a SIGSEGV unless you know EXACTLY what caused it, and there's no way to do that in standard C. It may be possible (conceivably) in an instrumented environment, like a C-VM (?). The same is true for all program error signals; if you try to block/ignore them, or establish handlers that return normally, your program will probably break horribly when they happen unless perhaps they're generated by raise or kill.
Just do yourself a favour and take error cases into account.
In POSIX, your process will get sent SIGSEGV when you do that. The default handler just crashes your program. You can add your own handler using the signal() call. You can implement whatever behaviour you like by handling the signal yourself.
You can use the SetUnhandledExceptionFilter() function (in windows), but even to be able to skip the "illegal" instruction you will need to be able to decode some assembler opcodes. And, as glowcoder said, even if it would "comment out" in runtime the instructions that generates segfaults, what will be left from the original program logic (if it may be called so)?
Everything is possible, but it doesn't mean that it has to be done.
Unfortunately, you can't in this case. The buggy function has undefined behavior and could have corrupted your program's state.
What you CAN do is run the functions in a new process. If this process dies with a return code that indicates SIGSEGV, you know it has failed.
You could also rewrite the functions yourself.
I can see at case for recovering from a Segmentation Violation, if your handling events in a loop and one of these events causes a Segmentation Violation then you would only want to skip over this event, continue processing the remaining events. In my eyes Segmentation Violation are much the same as NullPointerExceptions in Java. Yes the state will be inconsistent and unknown after either of these, however in some cases you would like to handle the situation and carry on. For instance in Algo trading you would pause the execution of an order and allow a trader to manually take over, with out crashing the entire system and ruining all other orders.
the best solution is to inbox each unsafe access this way :
#include <iostream>
#include <signal.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
static jmp_buf buf;
int counter = 0;
void signal_handler(int)
{
longjmp(buf,0);
}
int main()
{
signal(SIGSEGV,signal_handler);
setjmp(buf);
if(counter++ == 0){ // if we did'nt try before
*(int*)(0x1215) = 10; // access an other process's memory
}
std::cout<<"i am alive !!"<<std::endl; // we will get into here in any case
system("pause");
return 0;
}
you program will never crash in almost all os
This glib manual gives you a clear picture of how to write signal handlers.
A signal handler is just a function that you compile together with the rest
of the program. Instead of directly invoking the function, you use signal
or sigaction to tell the operating system to call it when a signal arrives.
This is known as establishing the handler.
In your case you will have to wait for the SIGSEGV indicating a segmentation fault. The list of other signals can be found here.
Signal handlers are broadly classified into tow categories
You can have the handler function note that the signal arrived by tweaking some
global data structures, and then return normally.
You can have the handler function terminate the program or transfer
control to a point where it can recover from the situation that caused the signal.
SIGSEGV comes under program error signals

Signal handler for SIGALRM does not work even if resetting in the handler

The example code of section 10.6, the expected result is:
after several iterations, the static structure used by getpwnam will be corrupted, and the program will terminate with SIGSEGV signal.
But on my platform, Fedora 11, gcc (GCC) 4.4.0, the result is
[Langzi#Freedom apue]$ ./corrupt
in sig_alarm
I can see the output from sig_alarm only once, and the program seems hung up for some reason, but it does exist, and still running.
But when I try to use gdb to run the program, it seems OK, I will see the output from sig_alarm at regular intervals.
And from my manual, it said the signal handler will be set to SIG_DEF after the signal is handled, and system will not block the signal. So at the beginning of my signal handler I reset the signal handler.
Maybe I should use sigaction instead, but I only want to know the reason about the difference between normal running and gdb running.
Any advice and help will be appreciated.
following is my code:
#include "apue.h"
#include <pwd.h>
void sig_alarm(int signo);
int main()
{
struct passwd *pwdptr;
signal(SIGALRM, sig_alarm);
alarm(1);
for(;;) {
if ((pwdptr = getpwnam("Zhijin")) == NULL)
err_sys("getpwnam error");
if (strcmp("Zhijin", pwdptr->pw_name) != 0) {
printf("data corrupted, pw_name: %s\n", pwdptr->pw_name);
}
}
}
void sig_alarm(int signo)
{
signal(SIGALRM, sig_alarm);
struct passwd *rootptr;
printf("in sig_alarm\n");
if ((rootptr = getpwnam("root")) == NULL)
err_sys("getpwnam error");
alarm(1);
}
According to the standard, you're really not allowed to do much in a signal handler. All you are guaranteed to be able to do in the signal-handling function, without causing undefined behavior, is to call signal, and to assign a value to a volatile static object of the type sig_atomic_t.
The first few times I ran this program, on Ubuntu Linux, it looked like your call to alarm in the signal handler didn't work, so the loop in main just kept running after the first alarm. When I tried it later, the program ran the signal handler a few times, and then hung. All this is consistent with undefined behavior: the program fails, sometimes, and in various more or less interesting ways.
It is not uncommon for programs that have undefined behavior to work differently in the debugger. The debugger is a different environment, and your program and data could for example be laid out in memory in a different way, so errors can manifest themselves in a different way, or not at all.
I got the program to work by adding a variable:
volatile sig_atomic_t got_interrupt = 0;
And then I changed your signal handler to this very simple one:
void sig_alarm(int signo) {
got_interrupt = 1;
}
And then I inserted the actual work into the infinite loop in main:
if (got_interrupt) {
got_interrupt = 0;
signal(SIGALRM, sig_alarm);
struct passwd *rootptr;
printf("in sig_alarm\n");
if ((rootptr = getpwnam("root")) == NULL)
perror("getpwnam error");
alarm(1);
}
I think the "apue" you mention is the book "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment", which I don't have here, so I don't know if the purpose of this example is to show that you shouldn't mess around with things inside of a signal handler, or just that signals can cause problems by interrupting the normal work of the program.
According to the spec, the function getpwnam is not reentrant and is not guaranteed to be thread safe. Since you are accessing the structure in two different threads of control (signal handlers are effectively running in a different thread context), you are running into this issue. Whenever you have concurrent or parallel execution (as when using pthreads or when using a signal handler), you must be sure not to modify shared state (e.g. the structure owned by 'getpwnam'), and if you do, then appropriate locking/synchronization must be used.
Additionally, the signal function has been deprecated in favor of the sigaction function. In order to ensure portable behavior when registering signal handlers, you should always use the sigaction invocation.
Using the sigaction function, you can use the SA_RESETHAND flag to reset the default handler. You can also use the sigprocmask function to enable/disable the delivery of signals without modifying their handlers.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void sigalrm_handler(int);
int main()
{
signal(SIGALRM, sigalrm_handler);
alarm(3);
while(1)
{
}
return 0;
}
void sigalrm_handler(int sign)
{
printf("I am alive. Catch the sigalrm %d!\n",sign);
alarm(3);
}
For example, my code is runing in main doing nothing and every 3 seconds my program says im alive x)
I think that if you do as i done calling in the handler function alarm with value 3, the problem is resolved :)

Resources