I'm trying to understand what is behind this behaviour in my parent process.
Basically, I create a child process and connect its stdout to my pipe. The parent process continuously reads from the pipe and does some stuff.
I noticed that when inserting the while loop in the parent the stdout seems to be lost, nothing appears on the terminal etc I thought that the output of stdout would somehow go to the pipe (maybe an issue with dup2) but that doesn't seem to be the issue. If I don't continuously fflush(stdout) in the parent process, whatever I'm trying to get to the terminal just won't show. Without a while loop in the parent it works fine, but I'm really not sure why it's happening or if the rest of my implementation is problematic somehow.
Nothing past the read system call seems to be going to the stdout in the parent process. Assuming the output of inotifywait in the pipe is small enough ( 30 > bytes ), what exactly is wrong with this program?
What I expect to happen is the stdout of inotifywait to go to the pipe, then for the parent to read the message, run strtok and print the file name (which only appears in stdout when I fflush)
Running the program with inotify installed and creating any file in the current directory of the program should be enough. Removing the while loop does print the created file's name (as expected).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <errno.h>
int main(void) {
char b[100];
int pipefd;
if (mkfifo("fifo", 0666) == -1) {
if (errno != EEXIST) {
perror("mkfifo");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
}
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid < 0) {
perror("fork");
exit(1);
}
if ((pipefd = open("fifo", O_RDWR)) < 0) {
perror("open pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (pid == 0) {
dup2(pipefd, 1);
const char* dir = ".";
const char* args[] = {"inotifywait", dir, "-m", "-e",
"create", "-e", "moved_to", NULL};
execvp("inotifywait", (char**)args);
perror("inotifywait");
} else {
while (1) {
fflush(stdout); // the output only appears in stdout with this here
if (read(pipefd, b, 30) < 0) {
perror("problem # read");
exit(1);
}
char filename[30];
printf("anything");
sscanf(b, "./ CREATE %s", filename);
printf("%s", filename);
}
}
}
The streams used by the C standard library are designed in such a way that they are normally buffered (except for the standard error stream stderr).
The standard output stream is normally line buffered, unless the output device is not an interactive device, in which case it is normally fully buffered. Therefore, in your case, it is probably line buffered.
This means that the buffer will only be flushed
when it is full,
when an \n character is encountered,
when the stream is closed (e.g. during normal program termination),
when reading input from an unbuffered or line-buffered stream (in certain situations), or
when you explicitly call fflush.
This explains why you are not seeing the output, because none of the above are happening in your infinite loop (when you don't call fflush). Although you are reading input, you are not doing this from a C standard library FILE * stream. Instead, you are bypassing the C runtime library (e.g. glibc) by using the read system call directly (i.e. you are using a file descriptor instead of a stream).
The simplest solution to your problem would probably be to replace the line
printf("%s", filename);
with:
printf("%s\n", filename);
If stdout is line-buffered (which should be the case if it is connected to a terminal), then the input should automatically be flushed after every line and an explicit call to fflush should no longer be necessary.
I had this simple shell like program that works both in interactive and non-interactive mode. I have simplified the code as much as I can to present my question, but it is still a bit long, so sorry for that!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <unistd.h>
/**
*main-entry point for gbk
*Return: returns the index of 0 on sucess
*/
int main(void)
{
char *cmd = malloc(1 * sizeof(char)), *cmdargs[2];
size_t cmdlen = 0;
int childid, len;
struct stat cmdinfo;
while (1)
{
printf("#cisfun$ ");
len = getline(&cmd, &cmdlen, stdin);
if (len == -1)
{
free(cmd);
exit(-1);
}
/*replace the ending new line with \0*/
cmd[len - 1] = '\0';
cmdargs[0] = cmd;
cmdargs[1] = NULL;
childid = fork();
if (childid == 0)
{
if (stat(*cmdargs, &cmdinfo) == 0 && cmdinfo.st_mode & S_IXUSR)
execve(cmdargs[0], cmdargs, NULL);
else
printf("%s: command not found\n", *cmdargs);
exit(0);
}
else
wait(NULL);
}
free(cmd);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
To summarize what this program does, it will first print the prompt #cisfun$ , waits for an input in interactive mode and takes the piped value in non-interactive mode, creates a child process, the child process checks if the string passed is a valid executable binary, and if it is, it executes it other wise it prints a command not found message and prompts again.
I have got this program to work fine for most of the scenarios in interactive mode, but when I run it in non-interactive mode all sorts of crazy (unexpected) things start to happen.
For example, when I run echo "/bin/ls"|./a.out, (a.out is the name of the compiled program)
you would first expect the #cisfun$ message to be printed since that is the first thing performed in the while loop, and then the output of the /bin/ls command, and finally #cisfun$ prompt, but that isn't what actually happens. Here is what happens,
It is very weird the ls command is run even before the first print message. I, at first, thought there was some threading going on and the printf was slower than the child process executing the ls command. But I am not sure if that is true as I am a noob. and also things get a bit crazier if I was printing a message with '\n' at the end rather than just a string. (if I change printf("#cisfun$ "); to printf("#cisfun$\n");) the following happens,
It works as it should, so it got me thinking what is the relation between '\n', fork and speed of printf. Just in short what is the explanation for this.
The second question I have is, why doesn't my program execute the first command and go to an interactive mode, I don't understand why it terminates after printing the second #cisfun$ message. By checking the status code (255) after exit I have realized that the effect is the same as pressing ctr+D in the interactive mode, which I believe is exited by the getline function. But I dont understand why EOF is being inserted in the second prompt.
I have a piece of software that is able to read commands from stdin for debug purposes in a separate thread. When my software runs as foreground process read behaves as expected, its blocking and waits for input by the user, i.e the thread sleeps.
When the software is run as a background process, read constantly returns 0 (possible EOF detected?).
The problem here is, that this specific read is in a while(true) loop. It runs as fast as it can and steals precious CPU load on my embedded device.
I tried redirecting /dev/null to the process but the behavior was the same. I am running my custom Linux on an ARM Cortex A5 board.
The problematic piece of code follows and is run inside its own thread:
char bufferUserInput[256];
const int sizeOfBuffer = SIZE_OF_ARRAY(bufferUserInput);
while (1)
{
int n = read(0, bufferUserInput, sizeOfBuffer); //filedes = 0 equals to reading from stdin
printf("n is: %d\n", n);
printf("Errno: %s",strerror(errno));
if (n == 1)
{
continue;
}
if ((1 < n)
&& (n < sizeOfBuffer)
&& ('\n' == bufferUserInput[n - 1]))
{
printf("\r\n");
bufferUserInput[n - 1] = '\0';
ProcessUserInput(&bufferUserInput[0]);
} else
{
n = 0;
}
}
I am looking for a way to prevent read from constantly returning when running in the background and wait for user input (which of course will never come).
If you start your program in the "background" (as ./program &) from a shell script, it's stdin will be redirected from /dev/null (with some exceptions).
Trying to read from /dev/null will always return 0 (EOF).
Example (on linux):
sh -c 'ls -l /proc/self/fd/0 & wait'
... -> /dev/null
sh -c 'dd & wait'
... -> 0 bytes copied, etc
The fix from the link above should also work for you:
#! /bin/sh
...
exec 3<&0
./your_program <&3 &
...
When stdin is not a terminal, read is returning with 0 because you are at the end of the file. read only blocks after reading all available input when there could be more input in the future, which is considered to be possible for terminals, pipes, sockets, etc. but not for regular files nor for /dev/null. (Yes, another process could make a regular file bigger, but that possibility isn't considered in the specification for read.)
Ignoring the various problems with your read loop that other people have pointed out (which you should fix anyway, as this will make reading debug commands from the user more reliable) the simplest change to your code that will fix the problem you're having right now is: check on startup whether stdin is a terminal, and don't launch the debug thread if it isn't. You do that with the isatty function, declared in unistd.h.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
// ...
int main(void)
{
if (isatty(fileno(stdin)))
start_debug_thread();
// ...
}
(Depending on your usage context, it might also make sense to run the debug thread when stdin is a pipe or a socket, but I would personally not bother, I would rely on ssh to provide a remote (pseudo-)terminal when necessary.)
read() doesn't return 0 when reading from the terminal in a backgrounded process.
It either continues to block while causing a SIGTTIN to be sent to the process (which may break the blocking and cause retval=-1,errno=EINTR to be returned or it causes retval=-1, errno EIO if SIGTTIN is ignore.
The snippet below demonstrates this:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
int main()
{
char c[256];
ssize_t nr;
signal(SIGTTIN,SIG_IGN);
nr = read(0,&c,sizeof(c));
printf("%zd\n", nr);
if(0>nr) perror(0);
fflush(stdout);
}
The code snippet you've shown can't possibly test reveal 0-returns since you never test for zero-ness in the return value.
I've boiled down my entire program to a short main that replicates the issue, so forgive me for it not making any sense.
input.txt is a text file that has a couple lines of text in it. This boiled down program should print those lines. However, if fork is called, the program enters an infinite loop where it prints the contents of the file over and over again.
As far as I understand fork, the way I use it in this snippet is essentially a no-op. It forks, the parent waits for the child before continuing, and the child is immediately killed.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
enum { MAX = 100 };
int main(){
freopen("input.txt", "r", stdin);
char s[MAX];
int i = 0;
char* ret = fgets(s, MAX, stdin);
while (ret != NULL) {
//Commenting out this region fixes the issue
int status;
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0) {
exit(0);
} else {
waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
}
//End region
printf("%s", s);
ret = fgets(s, MAX, stdin);
}
}
Edit: Further investigation has only made my issue stranger. If the file contains <4 blank lines or <3 lines of text, it does not break. However, if there are more than that, it loops infinitely.
Edit2: If the file contains numbers 3 lines of numbers it will infinitely loop, but if it contains 3 lines of words it will not.
I am surprised that there is a problem, but it does seem to be a problem on Linux (I tested on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS running in a VMWare Fusion VM on my Mac) — but it was not a problem on my Mac running macOS 10.13.4 (High Sierra), and I wouldn't expect it to be a problem on other variants of Unix either.
As I noted in a comment:
There's an open file description and an open file descriptor behind each stream. When the process forks, the child has its own set of open file descriptors (and file streams), but each file descriptor in the child shares the open file description with the parent. IF (and that's a big 'if') the child process closing the file descriptors first did the equivalent of lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET), then that would also position the file descriptor for the parent process, and that could lead to an infinite loop. However, I've never heard of a library that does that seek; there's no reason to do it.
See POSIX open() and fork() for more information about open file descriptors and open file descriptions.
The open file descriptors are private to a process; the open file descriptions are shared by all copies of the file descriptor created by an initial 'open file' operation. One of the key properties of the open file description is the current seek position. That means that a child process can change the current seek position for a parent — because it is in the shared open file description.
neof97.c
I used the following code — a mildly adapted version of the original that compiles cleanly with rigorous compilation options:
#include "posixver.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
enum { MAX = 100 };
int main(void)
{
if (freopen("input.txt", "r", stdin) == 0)
return 1;
char s[MAX];
for (int i = 0; i < 30 && fgets(s, MAX, stdin) != NULL; i++)
{
// Commenting out this region fixes the issue
int status;
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
exit(0);
}
else
{
waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
}
// End region
printf("%s", s);
}
return 0;
}
One of the modifications limits the number of cycles (children) to just 30.
I used a data file with 4 lines of 20 random letters plus a newline (84 bytes total):
ywYaGKiRtAwzaBbuzvNb
eRsjPoBaIdxZZtJWfSty
uGnxGhSluywhlAEBIXNP
plRXLszVvPgZhAdTLlYe
I ran the command under strace on Ubuntu:
$ strace -ff -o st-out -- neof97
ywYaGKiRtAwzaBbuzvNb
eRsjPoBaIdxZZtJWfSty
uGnxGhSluywhlAEBIXNP
plRXLszVvPgZhAdTLlYe
…
uGnxGhSluywhlAEBIXNP
plRXLszVvPgZhAdTLlYe
ywYaGKiRtAwzaBbuzvNb
eRsjPoBaIdxZZtJWfSty
$
There were 31 files with names of the form st-out.808## where the hashes were 2-digit numbers. The main process file was quite large; the others were small, with one of the sizes 66, 110, 111, or 137:
$ cat st-out.80833
lseek(0, -63, SEEK_CUR) = 21
exit_group(0) = ?
+++ exited with 0 +++
$ cat st-out.80834
lseek(0, -42, SEEK_CUR) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
exit_group(0) = ?
+++ exited with 0 +++
$ cat st-out.80835
lseek(0, -21, SEEK_CUR) = 0
exit_group(0) = ?
+++ exited with 0 +++
$ cat st-out.80836
exit_group(0) = ?
+++ exited with 0 +++
$
It just so happened that the first 4 children each exhibited one of the four behaviours — and each further set of 4 children exhibited the same pattern.
This shows that three out of four of the children were indeed doing an lseek() on standard input before exiting. Obviously, I have now seen a library do it. I have no idea why it is thought to be a good idea, though, but empirically, that is what is happening.
neof67.c
This version of the code, using a separate file stream (and file descriptor) and fopen() instead of freopen() also runs into the problem.
#include "posixver.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
enum { MAX = 100 };
int main(void)
{
FILE *fp = fopen("input.txt", "r");
if (fp == 0)
return 1;
char s[MAX];
for (int i = 0; i < 30 && fgets(s, MAX, fp) != NULL; i++)
{
// Commenting out this region fixes the issue
int status;
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
exit(0);
}
else
{
waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
}
// End region
printf("%s", s);
}
return 0;
}
This also exhibits the same behaviour, except that the file descriptor on which the seek occurs is 3 instead of 0. So, two of my hypotheses are disproven — it's related to freopen() and stdin; both are shown incorrect by the second test code.
Preliminary diagnosis
IMO, this is a bug. You should not be able to run into this problem.
It is most likely a bug in the Linux (GNU C) library rather than the kernel. It is caused by the lseek() in the child processes. It is not clear (because I've not gone to look at the source code) what the library is doing or why.
GLIBC Bug 23151
GLIBC Bug 23151 - A forked process with unclosed file does lseek before exit and can cause infinite loop in parent I/O.
The bug was created 2018-05-08 US/Pacific, and was closed as INVALID by 2018-05-09. The reason given was:
Please read
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_05_01,
especially this paragraph:
Note that after a fork(), two handles exist where one existed before. […]
POSIX
The complete section of POSIX referred to (apart from verbiage noting that this is not covered by the C standard) is this:
2.5.1 Interaction of File Descriptors and Standard I/O Streams
An open file description may be accessed through a file descriptor, which is created using functions such as open() or pipe(), or through a stream, which is created using functions such as fopen() or popen(). Either a file descriptor or a stream is called a "handle" on the open file description to which it refers; an open file description may have several handles.
Handles can be created or destroyed by explicit user action, without affecting the underlying open file description. Some of the ways to create them include fcntl(), dup(), fdopen(), fileno(), and fork(). They can be destroyed by at least fclose(), close(), and the exec functions.
A file descriptor that is never used in an operation that could affect the file offset (for example, read(), write(), or lseek()) is not considered a handle for this discussion, but could give rise to one (for example, as a consequence of fdopen(), dup(), or fork()). This exception does not include the file descriptor underlying a stream, whether created with fopen() or fdopen(), so long as it is not used directly by the application to affect the file offset. The read() and write() functions implicitly affect the file offset; lseek() explicitly affects it.
The result of function calls involving any one handle (the "active handle") is defined elsewhere in this volume of POSIX.1-2017, but if two or more handles are used, and any one of them is a stream, the application shall ensure that their actions are coordinated as described below. If this is not done, the result is undefined.
A handle which is a stream is considered to be closed when either an fclose(), or freopen() with non-full(1) filename, is executed on it (for freopen() with a null filename, it is implementation-defined whether a new handle is created or the existing one reused), or when the process owning that stream terminates with exit(), abort(), or due to a signal. A file descriptor is closed by close(), _exit(), or the exec() functions when FD_CLOEXEC is set on that file descriptor.
(1) [sic] Using 'non-full' is probably a typo for 'non-null'.
For a handle to become the active handle, the application shall ensure that the actions below are performed between the last use of the handle (the current active handle) and the first use of the second handle (the future active handle). The second handle then becomes the active handle. All activity by the application affecting the file offset on the first handle shall be suspended until it again becomes the active file handle. (If a stream function has as an underlying function one that affects the file offset, the stream function shall be considered to affect the file offset.)
The handles need not be in the same process for these rules to apply.
Note that after a fork(), two handles exist where one existed before. The application shall ensure that, if both handles can ever be accessed, they are both in a state where the other could become the active handle first. The application shall prepare for a fork() exactly as if it were a change of active handle. (If the only action performed by one of the processes is one of the exec() functions or _exit() (not exit()), the handle is never accessed in that process.)
For the first handle, the first applicable condition below applies. After the actions required below are taken, if the handle is still open, the application can close it.
If it is a file descriptor, no action is required.
If the only further action to be performed on any handle to this open file descriptor is to close it, no action need be taken.
If it is a stream which is unbuffered, no action need be taken.
If it is a stream which is line buffered, and the last byte written to the stream was a <newline> (that is, as if a
putc('\n')
was the most recent operation on that stream), no action need be taken.
If it is a stream which is open for writing or appending (but not also open for reading), the application shall either perform an fflush(), or the stream shall be closed.
If the stream is open for reading and it is at the end of the file (feof() is true), no action need be taken.
If the stream is open with a mode that allows reading and the underlying open file description refers to a device that is capable of seeking, the application shall either perform an fflush(), or the stream shall be closed.
For the second handle:
If any previous active handle has been used by a function that explicitly changed the file offset, except as required above for the first handle, the application shall perform an lseek() or fseek() (as appropriate to the type of handle) to an appropriate location.
If the active handle ceases to be accessible before the requirements on the first handle, above, have been met, the state of the open file description becomes undefined. This might occur during functions such as a fork() or _exit().
The exec() functions make inaccessible all streams that are open at the time they are called, independent of which streams or file descriptors may be available to the new process image.
When these rules are followed, regardless of the sequence of handles used, implementations shall ensure that an application, even one consisting of several processes, shall yield correct results: no data shall be lost or duplicated when writing, and all data shall be written in order, except as requested by seeks. It is implementation-defined whether, and under what conditions, all input is seen exactly once.
Each function that operates on a stream is said to have zero or more "underlying functions". This means that the stream function shares certain traits with the underlying functions, but does not require that there be any relation between the implementations of the stream function and its underlying functions.
Exegesis
That is hard reading! If you're not clear on the distinction between open file descriptor and open file description, read the specification of open() and fork() (and dup() or dup2()). The definitions for file descriptor and open file description are also relevant, if terse.
In the context of the code in this question (and also for Unwanted child processes being created while file reading), we have a file stream handle open for reading only which has not yet encountered EOF (so feof() would not return true, even though the read position is at the end of the file).
One of the crucial parts of the specification is: The application shall prepare for a fork() exactly as if it were a change of active handle.
This means that the steps outlined for 'first file handle' are relevant, and stepping through them, the first applicable condition is the last:
If the stream is open with a mode that allows reading and the underlying open file description refers to a device that is capable of seeking, the application shall either perform an fflush(), or the stream shall be closed.
If you look at the definition for fflush(), you find:
If stream points to an output stream or an update stream in which the most recent operation was not input, fflush() shall cause any unwritten data for that stream to be written to the file, [CX] ⌦ and the last data modification and last file status change timestamps of the underlying file shall be marked for update.
For a stream open for reading with an underlying file description, if the file is not already at EOF, and the file is one capable of seeking, the file offset of the underlying open file description shall be set to the file position of the stream, and any characters pushed back onto the stream by ungetc() or ungetwc() that have not subsequently been read from the stream shall be discarded (without further changing the file offset). ⌫
It isn't exactly clear what happens if you apply fflush() to an input stream associated with a non-seekable file, but that isn't our immediate concern. However, if you're writing generic library code, then you might need to know whether the underlying file descriptor is seekable before doing a fflush() on the stream. Alternatively, use fflush(NULL) to have the system do whatever is necessary for all I/O streams, noting that this will lose any pushed-back characters (via ungetc() etc).
The lseek() operations shown in the strace output seem to be implementing the fflush() semantics associating the file offset of the open file description with the file position of the stream.
So, for the code in this question, it seems that fflush(stdin) is necessary before the fork() to ensure consistency. Not doing that leads to undefined behaviour ('if this is not done, the result is undefined') — such as looping indefinitely.
The exit() call closes all open file handles. After the fork, the child and parent have identical copies of the execution stack, including the FileHandle pointer. When the child exits, it closes the file and resets the pointer.
int main(){
freopen("input.txt", "r", stdin);
char s[MAX];
prompt(s);
int i = 0;
char* ret = fgets(s, MAX, stdin);
while (ret != NULL) {
//Commenting out this region fixes the issue
int status;
pid_t pid = fork(); // At this point both processes has a copy of the filehandle
if (pid == 0) {
exit(0); // At this point the child closes the filehandle
} else {
waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
}
//End region
printf("%s", s);
ret = fgets(s, MAX, stdin);
}
}
As /u/visibleman pointed out, the child thread is closing the file and messing things up in main.
I was able to work around it by checking if the program is in terminal mode with
!isatty(fileno(stdin))
And if stdin has been redirected, then it will read all of it into a linkedlist before doing any processing or forking.
Replace exit(0) with _exit(0), and all is fine. This is an old unix tradition, if you are using stdio, your forked image must use _exit(), not exit().
In Linux, I am finding pid of process by opening pipe with "pidof process_name" command and then reading it's output using fgets function. But it fails to find pid once in a while. Below is my code for finding pid of my process.
int FindPidByProcessName(char *pName)
{
int pid = -1;
char line[30] = { 0 };
char buf[64] = { 0 };
sprintf(buf, "pidof %s", pName);
//pipe stream to process
FILE *cmd = popen(buf, "r");
if (NULL != cmd)
{
//get line from pipe stream
fgets(line, 30, cmd);
//close pipe
pclose(cmd); cmd = NULL;
//convert string to unsigned LONG integer
pid = strtoul(line, NULL, 10);
}
return pid;
}
In output sometimes pid=0 comes even though process is available in "ps" command output.
So, I try to find root cause behind this issue and i found something like input/output buffer mechanism is may creating issue in my scenario.
So I try to use sync() function before opening popen() and strangely my function starts working with 100% accuracy.
Now sync() function is taking too much time(approximately 2min sometime) to complete its execution which is not desirable. So i try to use fflush(), fsync() and fdatasync() but these all are not working appropriately.
So please anyone tell me what was the exact root cause behind this issue And how to solve this issue appropriately?
Ok, the root cause of the error is stored in the errno variable (which btw you do not need to initialize). You can get an informative message using the fucntion
perror("Error: ");
If u use perror the variable errno is interpreted and you get a descriptive message.
Another way (the right way!) of finding the root cause is compiling your program with the -g flag and running the binary with gdb.
Edit: I strongly suggest the use of the gdb debugger so that you can look exactly what path does your code follow, so that you can explain the strange behaviour you described.
Second Edit: Errno stores the last error (return value). Instead of calling the functions as you do, you should write, and check errno immediately:
if ((<function>) <0) {
perror("<function>: ");
exit(1);
}