Related
The POSIX pselect function take a signal mask argument. The signal mask is "atomically" set as the current mask before execution of the function begins, and is restored as the function returns.
This allows an otherwise masked signal to be unmasked while the function executes, and masked again when the function returns. It's guaranteed* that if a signal unmasked in this way is caught, the pselect function will be interrupted by the signal and (unless the signal action is specified with the SA_RESTART flag) will return an EINTR error.
(*: or is it? the language in the document linked above would seem to allow that a signal being received between when pselect unblocked due to seeing a file readiness or timeout and when it replaced the signal mask with the original would not necessarily cause EINTR, since EINTR is required if "The function was interrupted while blocked ..." - however, that ultimately doesn't affect this question).
My question is: supposing that two separate signals are temporarily unmasked during pselect execution, is it possible that both signals will be caught before the pselect function returns and the previous signal mask is restored - or is there some kind of guarantee that only one signal will be caught in this case (leaving the other one pending)? (For purposes of the question, suppose that SA_RESTART is not set for the signal action, and that all signals were specified to be masked during execution of the signal handler when it was established via sigaction).
I can find nothing which suggests that only one signal may be processed, but I may have missed something, and I am writing some code for which this would be a very useful guarantee. I'd be interested to know if POSIX itself makes any guarantee, and also if different OSes provide such a guarantee independently.
No, but it also doesn’t specify that multiple signals can or must. Since it is unspecified, it is best to follow the general rule, which allows all pending unmasked signals to be processed. If you attempt to strictly depend upon this, you are likely on a bad path because the timing of asynchronous events is difficult to predict.
In general, it would be very difficult to make an implementation that imposed an ‘only one' restriction because the os runtime would have to leave one or more signals pending but unmasked until some unspecified point. Remember that the signal handler which runs when pselect is interrupted could do a siglongjmp rather than returning, so the kernel would have to keep a complicated, possibly unbounded data structure to track which signal mask to enforce.
Below is a modified version of your test program. In this one, each event emits a string via write() so there are no buffering problems. The program sets its “main” environment to mask SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2; but while pselect is running, it permits SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2, SIGTERM.
The program forks, with the parent (default:) sitting in a loop invoking pselect(), then outputting ‘.’ after it completes.
The child sits in a loop, delivering SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2 to the parent, then sleeping for a bit. It outputs ‘^’ after delivering the signals.
The handler emits a prefix “(1” or “(2” for SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2 resp; then sleeps for a bit, and outputs “)” to indicate the sleep has completed.
The output I see on macos (10.12.6, but I doubt it matters much) is:
^(2)(1).^(2)(1).^(2)(1).^(2)(1).Terminated: 15
which indicates that the signal handler for each of SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are being run for every invocation of pselect(). This is what I would expect; as it is designed to not admit a window of uncertainty as would be the case with bracketting select() with sigprocmasks().
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <sys/select.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void handle(int signo)
{
char s[2];
s[0] = '(';
s[1] = signo == SIGUSR1? '1' : '2';
write(1, s, 2);
sleep(1);
write(1, ")", 1);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
sigset_t mask;
sigemptyset(&mask);
sigaddset(&mask, SIGUSR1);
sigaddset(&mask, SIGUSR2);
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &mask, NULL);
sigfillset(&mask);
sigdelset(&mask, SIGUSR1);
sigdelset(&mask, SIGUSR2);
sigdelset(&mask, SIGTERM);
signal(SIGUSR1, handle);
signal(SIGUSR2, handle);
pid_t t = fork();
switch (t) {
default:
while (1) {
/* no USR1, USR2 */
pselect(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, &mask);
/* no USR1, USR2 */
write(1, ".", 1);
}
break;
case 0:
t = getppid();
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
kill(t, SIGUSR1);
kill(t, SIGUSR2);
write(1, "^", 1);
sleep(5);
}
kill(t, SIGTERM);
break;
case -1:
perror("fork\n");
}
return 0;
}
I've continued searching and found no additional information, so I can only conclude that there are no guarantees in POSIX generally.
Under Linux, if I understand the code below correctly, only one signal can be handled (assuming that the signal handler itself doesn't unmask signals): the relevant code and a revealing comment is in fs/select.c, in the do_pselect function:
ret = core_sys_select(n, inp, outp, exp, to);
ret = poll_select_copy_remaining(&end_time, tsp, 0, ret);
if (ret == -ERESTARTNOHAND) {
/*
* Don't restore the signal mask yet. Let do_signal() deliver
* the signal on the way back to userspace, before the signal
* mask is restored.
*/
if (sigmask) {
memcpy(¤t->saved_sigmask, &sigsaved,
sizeof(sigsaved));
set_restore_sigmask();
}
} else ...
It essentially returns from the system call, allowing the signal handler to execute, after which the original signal mask will immediately be restored (from current->saved_sigmask, because set_restore_sigmask() sets a flag indicating that this should occur).
The following test program verifies this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <sys/select.h>
volatile sig_atomic_t got_usr1 = 0;
volatile sig_atomic_t got_usr2 = 0;
void handle_usr1(int signo, siginfo_t *info, void *v)
{
got_usr1 = 1;
}
void handle_usr2(int signo, siginfo_t *info, void *v)
{
got_usr2 = 1;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
// mask SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2:
sigset_t curmask;
sigemptyset(&curmask);
sigaddset(&curmask, SIGUSR1);
sigaddset(&curmask, SIGUSR2);
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &curmask, NULL);
// Create a mask for all but SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2:
sigset_t mask;
sigfillset(&mask);
sigdelset(&mask, SIGUSR1);
sigdelset(&mask, SIGUSR2);
// Set up signal handlers:
struct sigaction action;
action.sa_sigaction = handle_usr1;
sigfillset(&action.sa_mask);
action.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
sigaction(SIGUSR1, &action, NULL);
action.sa_sigaction = handle_usr2;
sigaction(SIGUSR2, &action, NULL);
// Make signals pending:
raise(SIGUSR1);
raise(SIGUSR2);
// pselect with no file descriptors and no timeout:
pselect(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, &mask);
int count = got_usr1 + got_usr2;
printf("Handled %d signals while in pselect.\n", count);
return 0;
}
On Linux, the output of the above is consistently:
Handled 1 signals while in pselect.
This also seems to be the case on FreeBSD; however, I'm not willing to count on this being the case on all other platforms. The solution I have found to ensuring that only one signal can be handled is to use siglongjmp to jump out of the signal handler as well as out of the pselect call while also restoring the signal mask so that no further signals can be processed.
Essentially, that code looks like this:
jmp_buf jbuf; // signal handlers have access to this
if (sigsetjmp(jbuf, 1) != 0) {
// We received a signal while in pselect ...
}
int r = pselect(nfds, &read_set_c, &write_set_c, &err_set, wait_ts, &sigmask);
The signal handlers must execute a siglongjmp:
void signal_handler(int signo, siginfo_t *siginfo, void *v)
{
siglongjmp(jbuf, 1);
}
This feels crufty, but seems to work on all platforms that I've tested it on (Linux, MacOS and FreeBSD) - furthermore it seems to be supported by POSIX generally.
Broad Question: What is wrong with my code so that all the signals being generated aren't being caught by the two handler threads?
The unfortunate details for my poor question: I'm supposed to write some code with a main function, 3 generator threads to generate sig1 and sig2 type signals and two signal handling threads. I have tried solving this using the code shown below but I am running into some errors. I tried using sigaction with sigwaitinfo and sigwait to catch signals. But both methods don't seem to work correctly. In the code attached handler1 uses sigaction and sigwaitinfo, handler2 uses sigwait. But I have tried having both handlers use either one and my results are never as I believe they should be. It seems like some signals are never caught. What is wrong with my code so that all the signals aren't being caught? Here is a sample output
Sample Output
signal 1 received
signal 2 received
signal 1 received
signal 2 received
signal 2 received
sigSent1==2,sigSent2==7,sigReceived1==2,sigReceived2==3
A desired output would be
Possible Desired Output
signal 1 received
signal 2 received
signal 1 received
signal 2 received
signal 2 received
signal 1 received
signal 2 received
signal 1 received
signal 2 received
sigSent1==4,sigSent2==5,sigReceived1==4,sigReceived2==5
Sorry if this question is asking a lot but I really have no idea why not all signals are being caught and have been googling around and testing this for like 6 hours today and 3 hours yesterday as well as looking at the man pages...I may be missing something obvious...
#include<semaphore.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<unistd.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#include<time.h>
#include<signal.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<math.h>
/*
Pre-definitions of functions
*/
void generator();
void handler1();
void handler2();
void reporter();
/*
Global Variables
*/
int total_signal_count=0;
int sentSignal1=0;
int sentSignal2=0;
int receivedSignal1=0;
int receivedSignal2=0;
sem_t s_lock;
sem_t r_lock;
sigset_t set;
pthread_mutex_t lock;
pthread_t tid[5];
/*
Main function
*/
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
int i=0;
int randomNum=0;
int error;
int pid;
sigset_t mask_all,mask_one,prev_one;
//Setting up signals
//Get Random time
time_t now;
time(&now);
//semaphore is initialized to be global and val 1
sem_init(&s_lock,0,1);
sem_init(&r_lock,0,1);
srand((unsigned) time(&now));
//Blakc in main thread
sigemptyset(&set);
sigaddset(&set,SIGUSR1);
sigaddset(&set,SIGUSR2);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK,&set,NULL);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK,&set,NULL);
//Loops until more threads created than 2
while(i<3)
{ error=pthread_create(&tid[i],NULL,(void*)generator,NULL);
if(error!=0)
{
printf("failed to create thread\n");
}
i++;
}//end while loop
while(i<5)
{
error=pthread_create(&tid[3],NULL,(void*)handler1,NULL);
if(error!=0)
{
printf("failed to create thread\n");
}
error=pthread_create(&tid[4],NULL,(void*)handler2,NULL);
if(error!=0)
{
printf("failed to create thread \n");
}
i++;
}
//join the threads so main won't return
i=0;
int returnVal;
sleep(10);
printf("\n sigSent1==%d,sigSent2==%d,sigReceived1==%d,sigReceived2==%d\n",sentSignal1,sentSignal2,receivedSignal1,receivedSignal2);
while(i<5)//Loops until threads are joined
{
// printf("gonna join %d\n",i);
pthread_join(tid[i],NULL);
/*if((returnVal=pthread_join(tid[i],(void**)&returnVal))!=0)
{
printf("Error joining thread: %s at %d\n", strerror(returnVal),i);
}*/
i++;
}//end while
return 0;
}//end of main function
/*
Generator threads
*/
void generator()
{
sleep(1);
int i=3;
int randomNum=0;
int val=0;
int total_signal_c=9997;
while(total_signal_c<10000)
{
usleep(1);
//Randomly select to generate SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2
//Use pthread_kill(tid,SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2) to send the signal to a thread
// printf("total_signal_count%d\n",total_signal_c);
//Create either a sig1 signal or sig2 signal
randomNum=rand()%2;
switch(randomNum)
{
case 0:
val=pthread_kill(tid[3],SIGUSR1);
if(val!=0)
{
printf("kill fail ==%d\n",val);
}
sem_wait(&s_lock);
//semaphore
//mutex
sentSignal1++;
sem_post(&s_lock);
break;
case 1:
val=pthread_kill(tid[4],SIGUSR2);
if(val!=0)
{
printf("kill fail2\n");
}
sem_wait(&s_lock);
sentSignal2++;
sem_post(&s_lock);
//
//
break;
}
i++;
total_signal_c++;
//delay for a random time, 0.01 to 0.1 second
}
}
/*
Handler 1 threads
*/
void handler1()
{
//Setting up signals
// printf("In handler1\n");
struct sigaction s;
siginfo_t info;
sigemptyset(&s.sa_mask);
//use signal to perma block for handler2
signal(SIGUSR2,handler1);
//Add Sigusr1 to set
sigaddset((&s.sa_mask),SIGUSR1);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK,&s.sa_mask,NULL);
int val=-1;
//use signal(), sigaddset(), pthread_sigmask() etc to block and unblock signals as required.
while(1)
{ //use sigwaitinfo(); to receive a signal
val=-1;
val=sigwaitinfo(&s.sa_mask,&info);
//if signal received modify the corresponding counter
if(info.si_signo==SIGUSR1){
//increment semaphore lock
sem_wait(&r_lock);
receivedSignal1++;
//decrement semaphore lock
sem_post(&r_lock);
printf("signal 1 received\n");
}
if(val==-1)
{
// break;
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
/*
Handler2 threads
*/
void handler2()
{
int sigInfo=0;
//use signal to perma block for handler2
signal(SIGUSR1,handler2);
int val=-1;
while(1)
{ //use sigwaitinfo(); to receive a signal
val=-1;
val=sigwait(&set,&sigInfo);
//if signal received modify the corresponding counter
if(sigInfo==SIGUSR2){
//increment semaphore lock
sem_wait(&r_lock);
receivedSignal2++;
//decrement semaphore lock
sem_post(&r_lock);
printf("signal 2 received\n");
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
Some signals can be losts when there is a pending signal with he same code. From the specification of sigaction:
If a subsequent occurrence of a pending signal is generated, it is implementation-dependent as to whether the signal is delivered or accepted more than once in circumstances other than those in which queueing is required under the Realtime Signals Extension option. The order in which multiple, simultaneously pending signals outside the range SIGRTMIN to SIGRTMAX are delivered to or accepted by a process is unspecified.
If you want to catch all the signals you have two solutions:
Use real-time signals with a value from SIGRTMIN to SIGRTMAX, instead of SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2. Both pthread_sigqueue() and pthread_kill() will fail to send the signal if SIGQUEUE_MAX signals are pending or if the system hasn't enough resources to queue the signal.
Wait the precedent signal has been caught before to send another one.
EDIT:
1. Some explainations to answer your last comment.
You can't block-only a signal using signal(), you can ignore it (using SIG_IGN instead of a handler function) or register a handler function. With a handler function, I think we can say the signal is blocked AND caught.
I think your t.a. want you to handle one type of signal, for exemple SIGUSR1, using signal() and a handler function, and to handle SIGUSR2 with a thread using sigwaitinfo().
Using signal() you don't need to block the signals that you want to catch, and it can be done in the main thread.
Using sigwaitinfo() you need to block the signal you want to catch at least in the thread that will receive it.
You can have a look to the source code I have pasted at the end of this post.
2. More precisions.
To block a signal without placing an automatic catch/handler function, you have to use sigprocmask() in a single-threaded program, or pthread_sigmask() in a multi-threaded program. You also can use sigaction() in order to block some incomming signals during the execution of a signal handler function.
About signal catching, there are two ways to catch a signal:
A signal handler function is registered with signal() (or sigaction()) and automatically called when the signal is received, unless the signal was blocked in all threads. In order to make signal() work, you have to let at least one thread that non block the signal. You haven't to use sigwait() to handle the signal, because the program will automatically wait in parallel of its execution.
Using signal() will create a signal context when the signal is received and you will have to use async-signal-safe functions in the signal handler function. signal() register a handler function for the whole process, not only for the calling thread.
A handling thread need to catch the signals with sigwait() or sigwaitinfo(), and these threads aren't restricted to async-signal-safe functions. The signals to catch must be blocked using pthread_sigmask() at least in the thread that is the target of pthread_kill().
And must be blocked in all threads in order to catch process-wide signals for example triggered with kill() (if at least one thread doesn't block the signal, then it will have the default effect on the process).
3. Some explanations on what your program is doing.
In the main thread, the signals SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are blocked, so all the threads created by the main thread after this blocking will have these signals blocked, because they inherits of the mask of the creating thread.
When you call signal() it will register the functions handler1() and handler2() as signal handling functions to be called when a thread receive the signals. But these signals are blocked for all the threads, so handler1() and handler2() won't be called as signal handler functions. So, using signal() in your program is useless.
Moreover, handler1() and handler2() are designed to be handling threads, not signal handler functions. So you shouldn't register them with signal(), you have to register non-thread functions.
You should increment the counters for sent signals only when pthread_kill() didn't failed.
When creating the handling threads, the program create 2 useless threads, because the loop is executed for i = 3 and i = 4, and you create 2 threads in this loop. So the correct code is while(i < 4), or better remove the loop.
4. I modified your program in order to catch SIGUSR1 using signal():
You will see it only needs to block SIGUSR2 in handler2_thread(). No other blocking are needed in the program.
In this code, you will see the difference between a handling thread and a signal handler function, the signals received by thread1 are handled by the signal handler function handler1_func(), while the signals receveid by handler2_thread are handled in the thread itself.
The variable receivedSignal1_flag is declared volatile and of type sig_atomic_t because there is a race condition on it between the thread that check and reset it and the handler function that set it to 1. Using this way, some caught signals won't be counted. Regarding what I have read on sig_atomic_t, I'm not sure if it is possible to increment the counter receivedSignal1 directly in handler1_func() because the increment operation isn't atomic, and so can be disturbed by another signal handler. But maybe it is possible if handler_func() is the only one signal handler to read and write receivedSignal1 and having declared it volatile and sig_atomic_t. Also note that receivedSignal1_flag isn't locked with a semaphore nor a mutex, because only one thread is using it.
#include<semaphore.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<unistd.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#include<time.h>
#include<signal.h>
#include<string.h>
#include<math.h>
/*
Pre-definitions of functions
*/
void generator();
void handler1_func(int);
void thread1();
void handler2_thread();
void reporter();
/*
Global Variables
*/
int total_signal_count=0;
int sentSignal1=0;
int sentSignal2=0;
///////////////////////////////////////
//
// receivedSignal1_flag is volatile and
// sig_atomic_t because there is a race
// condition on it (used in the signal
// handler, and in the thread).
//
///////////////////////////////////////
volatile sig_atomic_t receivedSignal1_flag;
int receivedSignal1=0;
int receivedSignal2=0;
sem_t s_lock;
sem_t r_lock;
pthread_mutex_t lock;
pthread_t tid[5];
/*
Main function
*/
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
int i=0;
int randomNum=0;
int error;
int pid;
sigset_t mask_all,mask_one,prev_one;
//Setting up signals
//Get Random time
time_t now;
time(&now);
//semaphore is initialized to be global and val 1
sem_init(&s_lock,0,1);
sem_init(&r_lock,0,1);
srand((unsigned) time(&now));
//Loops until more threads created than 2
while(i<3)
{ error=pthread_create(&tid[i],NULL,(void*)generator,NULL);
if(error!=0)
{
printf("failed to create thread\n");
}
i++;
}//end while loop
error=pthread_create(&tid[3],NULL,(void*)thread1,NULL);
if(error!=0)
{
printf("failed to create thread\n");
}
error=pthread_create(&tid[4],NULL,(void*)handler2_thread,NULL);
if(error!=0)
{
printf("failed to create thread \n");
}
//join the threads so main won't return
i=0;
int returnVal;
sleep(15);
printf("\n sigSent1==%d,sigSent2==%d,sigReceived1==%d,sigReceived2==%d\n",sentSignal1,sentSignal2,receivedSignal1,receivedSignal2);
while(i<5)//Loops until threads are joined
{
// printf("gonna join %d\n",i);
pthread_join(tid[i],NULL);
/*if((returnVal=pthread_join(tid[i],(void**)&returnVal))!=0)
{
printf("Error joining thread: %s at %d\n", strerror(returnVal),i);
}*/
i++;
}//end while
return 0;
}//end of main function
/*
Generator threads
*/
void generator()
{
sleep(5);
int i=3;
int randomNum=0;
int val=0;
int total_signal_c=9990;
while(total_signal_c<10000)
{
usleep(1);
//Randomly select to generate SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2
//Use pthread_kill(tid,SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2) to send the signal to a thread
// printf("total_signal_count%d\n",total_signal_c);
//Create either a sig1 signal or sig2 signal
randomNum=rand()%2;
switch(randomNum)
{
case 0:
/////////////////////////////////////////
// Send SIGUSR1 to thread1
/////////////////////////////////////////
val=pthread_kill(tid[3],SIGUSR1);
if(val!=0)
{
printf("\nkill fail ==%d",val);
} else {
sem_wait(&s_lock);
//semaphore
//mutex
sentSignal1++;
sem_post(&s_lock);
}
break;
case 1:
/////////////////////////////////////////
// Send SIGUSR2 to handler2_thread
/////////////////////////////////////////
val=pthread_kill(tid[4],SIGUSR2);
if(val!=0)
{
printf("\nkill fail2");
} else {
sem_wait(&s_lock);
sentSignal2++;
sem_post(&s_lock);
//
//
}
break;
}
i++;
total_signal_c++;
//delay for a random time, 0.01 to 0.1 second
}
}
//////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Signal handler function for SIGUSR1:
//
//////////////////////////////////////////
void handler1_func(int signo)
{
// write on stdout using an async-signal-safe function:
write(STDOUT_FILENO,"\nSignal handler function: SIGUSR1 caught\n",41);
// set the received signal flag to 1:
if(signo == SIGUSR1) receivedSignal1_flag = 1;
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// The thread that will receive SIGUSR1 but not handle it
// because handler1_func() will handle it automatically:
//
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
void thread1()
{
//////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// register handler1_func() as signal handler
// for the whole process, not only the thread.
// It means that if another thread doesn't
// block SIGUSR1 and receive it, then
// handler1_func() will also be called:
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////
signal(SIGUSR1,handler1_func);
while(1)
{
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
// If a signal has been handled by handler1_func()
// then receivedSignal1_flag = 1.
// And so increment receivedSignal1 and print.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
if(receivedSignal1_flag == 1) {
// reset the flag:
receivedSignal1_flag = 0;
sem_wait(&r_lock);
receivedSignal1++;
printf("\nThread1: SIGUSR1 received and handled by handler1_func()\n");
sem_post(&r_lock);
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Handling thread for SIGUSR2:
//
////////////////////////////////////////
void handler2_thread()
{
///////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Need to block SIGUSR2 in order to avoid
// the default handler to be called.
//
///////////////////////////////////////////////
sigset_t set;
sigemptyset(&set);
sigaddset(&set,SIGUSR2);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK,&set,NULL);
siginfo_t info;
int val=-1;
while(1)
{
val=-1;
val=sigwaitinfo(&set,&info);
//if signal received modify the corresponding counter
if(info.si_signo==SIGUSR2){
//increment semaphore lock
sem_wait(&r_lock);
receivedSignal2++;
//decrement semaphore lock
printf("\nhandler2_thread: signal 2 received\n");
sem_post(&r_lock);
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
Only async-signal-safe functions may be safely called from a signal handler. sigwait() and sigwaitinfo() are not async-signal-safe. See 2.4 Signal Concepts at http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html. Also see the Linux signal.7 man page. Nor is printf() async-signal-safe.
Calling pthread_exit() in a signal handler is undefined behavior. It will terminate the thread - but in a signal-handling context, potentially causing significant issues. The following questions just begin to touch on the problems that making a call to pthread_exit() in a signal handler cause: pthread_exit() in signal handler and How to properly terminate a thread in a signal handler? See also http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_exit.html
Fundamentally, your code is confused. You start handler1() and handler2() as separate threads, then register those same functions as signal handlers, and then call sigwait()/sigwaitinfo() within the functions.
Given the way the code combines threads, signal handlers, while(1)... loops, it's pretty much impossible to even begin to guess what's happening. You may be getting threads that spawn signal handlers that get stuck in infinite loops, for example.
This line of code:
signal(SIGUSR1,handler2);
means that when SIGUSR1 is received, handler2() will be called in a signal context - but handler2() has a while(1) loop in it...
Asynchronous signal processing is a difficult concept to grasp. I'd say you need to start with something much simpler than multiple threads trying to signal each other.
I have a program that needs to use one custom signal handler for SIGINT and one for SIGCHILD.
I therefore added two struct sigaction called sigchildStruct and sigintStruct, and used sigaction to define two custo signal handling functions: handleSigInt() and handleSigChild()
First of all, is this the way you are supposed to do it; needing to register two separate sigaction structs?
Second of all, i need to block SIGCHILD during part of the code execution, i only want to receive the signal at one place in the code, so i used:
sigdelset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask,SIGCHLD);
// Catch SIGCHILD signal here
sigaddset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask,SIGCHLD);
Is that how you would do that? More importantly: there are two sigaction structs, but do i only need to change the sa_mask on one of them, or on both? Now i only changed the sa_mask on the struct called sigchildStruct, and not on the one called sigintStruct.
The rest of the code:
void handleSigchild(int sig) {
int childPID,childExitStatus;
printf("\nSIGCHILD received\n");
while ((childPID = waitpid(-1,&childExitStatus,WNOHANG)) >0) {
if (childExitStatus==2) {printf("Background process: %d%s",childPID," terminated by SIGINT\n");}
else if (childExitStatus!=0) {printf("Background process: %d%s",childPID," unknown command\n");}
printf("Background process: %d%s\n",childPID," has exited");
}
}
void handleSigInt(int sig) {
// SIGINT will be sent to all child processes so nothing needs to be done
printf("\nSIGINT received\n");
}
int main(int argc, char ** argv) {
// Sigaction for SIGCHILD
struct sigaction sigchildStruct;
sigchildStruct.sa_handler = &handleSigchild;
sigemptyset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask);
sigaddset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask,SIGCHLD);
sigchildStruct.sa_flags = SA_NOCLDSTOP;
if (sigaction(SIGCHLD, &sigchildStruct, 0) == -1) {
printf("Couldnt register signal handler: %s\n",strerror(errno));
exit(1);
}
// Sigaction for SIGINT
struct sigaction sigintStruct;
sigintStruct.sa_handler = &handleSigInt;
sigemptyset(&sigintStruct.sa_mask);
sigintStruct.sa_flags = SA_RESTART;
if (sigaction(SIGINT, &sigintStruct, 0) == -1) {
printf("Couldnt register signal handler: %s\n",strerror(errno));
exit(1);
}
sigdelset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask,SIGCHLD);
// Catch SIGCHILD signal here
sigaddset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask,SIGCHLD);
}
Because nobody answered, I'll try to do so. When I am dealing with signals I am using the function signal. This function takes two parameters: signal code and signal handler function. To start catching the signals I would put the code:
signal(SIGINT, handleSigInt);
signal(SIGCHILD, handleSigChild);
To stop catching the signal, I would execute:
signal(SIGINT, SIG_IGN);
signal(SIGCHILD, SIG_IGN);
Hope it helps.
There is several mistakes in your code.
1) It is not necessary to add SIGCHLD signal in the set of blocked signals during its handling. Every catched signal is blocked during its handling, so that there is no concurrent reentrance in the handling function :
struct sigaction sigchildStruct;
sigchildStruct.sa_handler = &handleSigchild;
sigemptyset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask);
// sigaddset(&sigchildStruct.sa_mask,SIGCHLD); // unnecessary
sigchildStruct.sa_flags = SA_NOCLDSTOP;
2) You modified the sa_mask value of the struct after setting the action, which has no effect. If you want to block the delivery of signals for some time you need to modify the process signal mask. There is a function to do that : sigprocmask. So you can do something like :
sigset_t oldMask, newMask;
sigemptyset(&newMask);
sigaddset(&newMask,SIGCHLD);
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,&newMask,&oldMask);
// now protected from SIGCHLD delivery, signal will be blocked...
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,&oldMask,NULL);
// old protection reinstalled...
I have the following program where I set the parent's process group and the child's process group, as well as giving the terminal control to the parent. Then, I run "cat" in the "background" child, which is supposed to generate SIGTTIN. However, the printf line in sighandler is not printed. Any ideas how to properly detect SIGTTIN in this case?
void sighandler(int signo){
printf("SIGTTIN detected\n");
}
int main() {
int status;
pid_t pid;
pid = fork ();
setpgid(0,0);
tcsetpgrp (STDIN_FILENO, 0);
signal(SIGTTIN, sighandler);
if (pid == 0)
{
setpgid(0,0);
execl ("cat", NULL);
_exit (EXIT_FAILURE);
}
else{
int status;
setpgid(pid,pid);
waitpid(-1, &status, 0);
}
return status;
}
Mariska,
For Parent Processes
As explained in the Stack Overflow post titled, "Catch Ctrl-C in C,":
The behavior of signal() varies across UNIX versions, and has also
varied historically across different versions of Linux. Avoid its use:
use sigaction(2) instead.
As described in the Linux Programmer's Manual, you should use sigaction():
The sigaction() system call is used to change the action taken by a
process on receipt of a specific signal.
Try this:
#include<stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
static void handler(int signum)
{
/* Take appropriate actions for signal delivery */
printf("SIGTTIN detected\n");
}
int main()
{
struct sigaction sa;
sa.sa_handler = handler;
sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
sa.sa_flags = SA_RESTART; /* Restart functions if
interrupted by handler */
if (sigaction(SIGINT, &sa, NULL) == -1)
/* Handle error */;
/* Further code */
}
For Child Processes
There are a couple of points you should know when dealing with signal handlers for the child processes:
A forked child inherits the signal handlers from the parent
Because of the above, you need to implement some sort of signal handler for the parent and then change the signal handler before and after executing a child.
As explained in the Linux Programmer's Manual:
All process attributes are preserved during an execve(), except the following:
a. The set of pending signals is cleared (sigpending(2)).
b. The dispositions of any signals that are being caught are
reset to being ignored.
c. Any alternate signal stack is not preserved (sigaltstack(2)).
Thus, the exec() functions do not preserve signal handlers.
From the above, I am trying to show you that pressing Ctrl-C sends the signal to the parent process (unless you use exec()), and then the signals are automatically propagated to children. This is why we need to change the signal handler. Even when the child is currently "active", the parent will still receive signals before the child will.
Please let me know if you have any questions!
I have a thread in an application that has a loop like this:
...
while (1)
{
checkDatabase();
checkChildren();
sleep(3);
}
...
checkDatabase() is self-explanatory; checkChildren() simply calls waitpid(-1, &status, WNOHANG) to deal with child processes that have either exited or received a signal.
The application works fairly well, but it has default signal handling. The problem is that this parent process has a number of threads (don't worry about child processes for now) and I don't have any experience with synchronous signals, let alone in a POSIX threads application. I have used signal() before but apparently it's non-portable and it doesn't do what I need anyway. I have no experience at all with sigaction methods, and I can't find good documentation on how to fill in the structs and so on.
What I need to do is to synchronously catch terminating signals like SIGINT, SIGTERM and SIGQUIT in the above loop (and I need to ignore SIGPIPE altogether so that I can catch the EPIPE error from IO methods), so it would look like this:
...
while (1)
{
checkDatabase();
checkChildren();
checkForSignals();
sleep(3);
}
...
All other threads should not have anything to do with the signal; only the thread that executes this loop should be aware of it. And, obviously, it needs to be a non-blocking check so the loop doesn't block during its first iteration. The method called if a signal is found will sort out the other threads and destroy mutexes, and all that.
Could anyone please give me a heads-up? Many thanks.
(Following the question's comments, and for completeness, this solution tries to avoid signal handlers.)
It is possible to block signals from being raised through sigprocmask() (or, rather, pthread_sigmask() since you're using threads). From there on, the signals that were raised but blocked are available through sigpending().
Therefore, you could do something like (error checking omitted for brevity):
sigset_t blocked;
sigemptyset(&blocked);
sigaddset(&blocked, SIGINT);
sigaddset(&blocked, SIGTERM);
sigaddset(&blocked, SIGQUIT);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK, &blocked, NULL); // Block SIGINT, SIGTERM and SIGQUIT.
signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN); // Ignore SIGPIPE.
Then, later:
void checkForSignals(void)
{
sigset_t pending;
sigpending(&pending);
if (sigismember(&pending, SIGINT)) {
// Handle SIGINT...
}
if (sigismember(&pending, SIGTERM)) {
// Handle SIGTERM...
}
if (sigismember(&pending, SIGQUIT)) {
// Handle SIGQUIT...
}
}
Since sigpending() does not block, this seems to match your requirements.
Create a signal handler for SIGINT, SIGTERM and SIGQUIT, using the same function. In that signal function just set a flag that can be polled in your loop.
Something like this:
/* Global variable, will be set to non-zero if SIGINT, SIGTERM or SIGQUIT is caught */
int term_signal_set = 0;
void my_signal_handler(int)
{
term_signal_set = 1;
}
/* ... */
signal(SIGINT, my_signal_handler);
signal(SIGTERM, my_signal_handler);
signal(SIGQUIT, my_signal_handler);
signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN); /* So functions return EPIPE */
while (1)
{
/* ... */
if (term_signal_set > 0)
break; /* Or do something else */
sleep(3);
}
In a multithreaded application receiving a signal, there is no predetermination, which thread receives the signal. Typical workaraounds include setting a global variable in the signal handler and checking it from a dedicated thread.
So in your case the signal handler (called from whatever thread) would just set something like a global variable for the signal received, and in CheckForSignals() you would test it.
sigaction is the way to go. man sigaction should help you. Here is an example from the web
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
struct sigaction act;
void sighandler(int signum, siginfo_t *info, void *ptr)
{
printf("Received signal %d\n", signum);
printf("Signal originates from process %lu\n",
(unsigned long)info->si_pid);
}
int main()
{
printf("I am %lu\n", (unsigned long)getpid());
memset(&act, 0, sizeof(act));
act.sa_sigaction = sighandler;
act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
sigaction(SIGTERM, &act, NULL);
// Waiting for CTRL+C...
sleep(100);
return 0;
}