I have read that TerminateThread() in WinAPI is dangerous to use.
Is pthread_kill() in Linux also dangerous to use?
Edit: Sorry I meant pthread_kill() and not pthread_exit().
To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, the answer is "yes, and no".
In and of itself calling pthread_exit() is not dangerous and is called implicitly when your thread exits its method. However, there are a few "gotchas" if you call it manually.
All cleanup handlers are called when this is called. So if you call this method, then access some memory that the cleanup handlers have cleaned up, you get a memory error.
Similarly, after this is called, any local and thread-local variables for the thread become invalid. So if a reference is made to them you can get a memory error.
If this has already been called for the thread (implicitly or explicitly) calling it again has an undefined behaviour, and
If this is the last thread in your process, this will cause the process to exit.
If you are careful of the above (i.e. if you are careful to not reference anything about the thread after you have called pthread_exit) then it is safe to call call manually. However, if you are using C++ instead of C I would highly recommend using the std::thread class rather than doing it manually. It is easier to read, involves less code, and ensures that you are not breaking any of the above.
For more information type "man pthread_exit" which will essentially tell you the above.
Since the question has now been changed, I will write a new answer. My answer still remains "yes and no" but the reasons have changed.
pthread_kill is somewhat dangerous in that it shares the potential timing risks that is inherent in all signal handling systems. In addition there are complexities in dealing with it, specifically you have to setup a signal handler within the thread. However one could argue that it is less dangerous than the Windows function you mention. Here is why:
The Windows function essentially stops the thread, possibly bypassing the proper cleanup. It is intended as a last resort option. pthread_kill, on the other hand, does not terminate the thread at all. It simply sends a signal to the thread that the thread can respond to.
In order for this to do something you need to have registered in the thread what signals you want it to handle. If your goal is to use pthread_kill to terminate the thread, you can use this by having your signal handler set a flag that the thread can access, and having the thread check the flag and exit when it gets set. You may be able to call pthread_exit from the signal handler (I've never tried that) but it strikes me as being a bad idea since the signal comes asynchronously, and your thread is not guaranteed to still be running. The flag option I mention solves this provided that the flag is not local to the thread, allowing the signal handler to set it even if the target thread has already exited. Of course if you are doing this, you don't really need pthread_kill at all, as you can simply have your main thread set the flag at the appropriate time.
There is another option for stopping another thread - the pthread_cancel method. This method will place a cancel request on the target thread and, if the thread has been configured to be cancellable (you generally do this in the pthread_create, but you can also do it after the fact), then the next time the thread reaches a potential cancellation point (specified by pthread_testcancel but also automatically handled by many system routines such as the IO calls), it will exit. This is also safer than what Windows does as it is not violently stopping the thread - it only stops at well defined points. But it is more work than the Windows version as you have to configure the thread properly.
The Wikipedia page for "posix threads" describes some of this (but not much), but it has a pretty good "See also" and "References" section that will give you more details.
Related
This really is two questions, but I suppose it's better they be combined.
We're working on a client that uses asynchronous TCP connection. The idea is that the program will block until certain message is received from the server, which will invoke a SIGPOLL handler. We are using a busy waiting loop, basically:
var = 1
while (var) usleep(100);
//...and somewhere else
void sigpoll_handler(int signum){
......
var = 0;
......
}
We would like to use something more reliable instead, like a semaphore. The thing is, when a thread is blocked on a semaphore, will the signal get through still? Especially considering that signals get delivered when it switches back to user level; if the process is off the runqueue, how will it happen?
Side question (just out of curiosity):
Without the "usleep(100)" the program never progresses past the while loop, although I can verify the variable was set in the handler. Why is that? Printing changes its behaviour too.
Cheers!
[too long for a comment]
Accessing var from inside the signal handler invokes undefined behaviour (at least for a POSIX conforming system).
From the related POSIX specification:
[...] if the process is single-threaded and a signal handler is executed [...] the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object [...] with static storage duration other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t [...]
So var shall be defined:
volatile sig_atomic_t var;
The busy waiting while-loop, can be replaced by a single call to a blocking pause(), as it will return on reception of the signal.
From the related POSIX specification:
The pause() function shall suspend the calling thread until delivery of a signal whose action is either to execute a signal-catching function or to terminate the process.
Using pause(), btw, will make the use of any global flag like var redundant, to not say needless.
Short answer: yes, the signal will get through fine with a good implementation.
If you're going to be using a semaphore to control the flow of the program, you'll want to have the listening be on one child with the actual data processing be on another. This will then put the concurrency fairness in the hands of the OS which will make sure your signal listening thread gets a chance to check for a signal with some regularity. It shouldn't ever be really "off the runqueue," but cycling through positions on the runqueue instead.
If it helps you to think about it, what you have right now seems to basically be a a very rough implementation of a semaphore on its own -- a shared variable whose value will stop one block of code from executing until another code block clears it. There isn't anything inherently paralyzing about a semaphore on a system level.
I kind of wonder why whatever function you're using to listen for the SIGPOLL isn't doing its own blocking, though. Most of those utilities that I've seen will stop their calling thread until they return a value. Basically they handle the concurrency for you and you can code as if you were dealing with a normal synchronous program.
With regards to the usleep loop: I'd have to look at what the optimizer's doing, but I think there are basically two possibilities. I think it's unlikely, but it could be that the no-body loop is compiling into something that isn't actually checking for a value change and is instead just looping. More likely to me would be that the lack of any body steps is messing up the underlying concurrency handling, and the loop is executing so quickly that nothing else is getting a chance to run -- the queue is being flooded by loop iterations and your signal processsing can't get a word in edgewise. You could try just watching it for a few hours to see if anything changes; theoretically if it's just a concurrency problem then the random factor involved could clear the block on its own with a few billion chances.
I want to set up a signal handler for SIGSEGV, SIGILL and possibly a few other signals that, rather than terminating the whole process, just terminates the offending thread and perhaps sets a flag somewhere so that a monitoring thread can complain and start another thread. I'm not sure there is a safe way to do this. Pthreads seems to provide functions for exiting the current thread, as well as canceling another thread, but these potentially call a bunch of at-exit handlers. Even if they don't, it seems as though there are many situations in which they are not async-signal-safe, although it is possible that those situations are avoidable. Is there a lower-level function I can call that just destroys the thread? Assuming I modify my own data structures in an async-signal-safe way, and acquire no mutexes, are there pthread/other global data structures that could be left in an inconsistent state simply by a thread terminating at a SIGSEGV? malloc comes to mind, but malloc itself shouldn't SIGSEGV/SIGILL unless the libc is buggy. I realize that POSIX is very conservative here, and makes no guarantees. As long as there's a way to do this in practice I'm happy. Forking is not an option, btw.
If the SIGSEGV/SIGILL/etc. happens in your own code, the signal handler will not run in an async-signal context (it's fundamentally a synchronous signal, but would still be an AS context if it happened inside a standard library function), so you can legally call pthread_exit from the signal handler. However, there are still issues that make this practice dubious:
SIGSEGV/SIGILL/etc. never occur in a program whose behavior is defined unless you generate them via raise, kill, pthread_kill, sigqueue, etc. (and in some of these special cases, they would be asynchronous signals). Otherwise, they're indicative of a program having undefined behavior. If the program has invoked undefined behavior, all bets are off. UB is not isolated to a particular thread or a particular sequence in time. If the program has UB, its entire output/behavior is meaningless.
If the program's state is corrupted (e.g. due to access-after-free, use of invalid pointers, buffer overflows, ...) it's very possible that the first faulting access will happen inside part of the standard library (e.g. inside malloc) rather than in your code. In this case, the signal handler runs in an AS-safe context and cannot call pthread_exit. Of course the program already has UB anyway (see the above point), but even if you wanted to pretend that's not an issue, you'd still be in trouble.
If your program is experiencing these kinds of crashes, you need to find the cause and fix it, not try to patch around it with signal handlers. Valgrind is your friend. If that's not possible, your best bet is to isolate the crashing code into separate processes where you can reason about what happens if they crash asynchronously, rather than having the crashing code in the same process (where any further reasoning about the code's behavior is invalid once you know it crashes).
i am using posix threads my question is as to whether or not a thread can cancel itself by passing its own thread id in pthread_cancel function?
if yes then what are its implications
also if a main program creates two threads and one of the thread cancels the other thread then what happens to the return value and the resources of the cancelled thread
and how to know from main program as to which thread was cancelled ..since main program is not cancelling any of the threads
i am using asynchronous cancellation
kindly help
Q1: Yes, a thread can cancel itself. However, doing so has all of the negative consequences of cancellation in general; you probably want to use pthread_exit instead, which is somewhat more predictable.
Q2: When a thread has been cancelled, it doesn't get to generate a return value; instead, pthread_join will put the special value PTHREAD_CANCELED in the location pointed to by its retval argument. Unfortunately, you have to know by some other means that a specific thread has definitely terminated (in some fashion) before you call pthread_join, or the calling thread will block forever. There is no portable equivalent of waitpid(..., WNOHANG) nor of waitpid(-1, ...). (The manpage says "If you believe you need this functionality, you probably need to rethink your application design" which makes me want to punch someone in the face.)
Q2a: It depends what you mean by "resources of the thread". The thread control block and stack will be deallocated. All destructors registered with pthread_cleanup_push or pthread_key_create will be executed (on the thread, before it terminates); some runtimes also execute C++ class destructors for objects on the stack. It is the application programmer's responsibility to make sure that all resources owned by the thread are covered by one of these mechanisms. Note that some of these mechanisms have inherent race conditions; for instance, it is impossible to open a file and push a cleanup that closes it as an atomic action, so there is a window where cancellation can leak the open file. (Do not think this can be worked around by pushing the cleanup before opening the file, because a common implementation of deferred cancels is to check for them whenever a system call returns, i.e. exactly timed to hit the tiny gap between the OS writing the file descriptor number to the return-value register, and the calling function copying that register to the memory location where the cleanup expects it to be.)
Qi: you didn't ask this, but you should be aware that a thread with asynchronous cancellation enabled is officially not allowed to do anything other than pure computation. The behavior is undefined if it calls any library function other than pthread_cancel, pthread_setcanceltype(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DEFERRED), or pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE).
Q1. Yes,thread can cancel itself.
Q2. If one thread cancel another thread , its resources are hang around until main thread
join that thread with pthread_join() function(if the thread is joinable). And if the canceled
thread is not join in main thread resources are free with program ends/terminate.
Q3. I am not sure, but main program don't know which thread was canceled.
thread can cancel any other thread (within the same process) including itself
threads do not have return values (in general way, they can have return status only), resources of the thread will be freed upon cancellation
main program can store thread's handler and test whether it valid or not
(Working in Win32 api , in C environment with VS2010)
I have a two thread app. The first thread forks the second and waits for a given interval - 'TIMEOUT', and then calls TerminateThread() on it.
Meanwhile, second thread calls NetServerEnum().
It appears that when timeout is reached , whether NetServerEnum returned successfully or not, the first thread get deadlocked.
I've already noticed that NetServerEnum creates worker threads of it's own.
I ultimately end up with one of those threads in deadlock, typically on ntdll.dll!RtlInitializeExceptionChain, unable to exit my process gracefully.
As this to too long for a comment:
Verbatim from MSDN, allow me to use te answer form (emphasis by me):
TerminateThread is a dangerous function that should only be used in the most extreme cases. You should call TerminateThread only if you know exactly what the target thread is doing, and you control all of the code that the target thread could possibly be running at the time of the termination. For example, TerminateThread can result in the following problems:
If the target thread owns a critical section, the critical section will not be released.
If the target thread is allocating memory from the heap, the heap lock will not be released.
*If the target thread is executing certain kernel32 calls when it is terminated, the kernel32 state for the thread's process could be inconsistent.
If the target thread is manipulating the global state of a shared DLL, the state of the DLL could be destroyed, affecting other users of the DLL.
From reading this it is easy to understanf why it is a bad idea to cancel (terminate) a thread stucking in a system call.
A possible alternative approach to the OP's design might be to spawn off a thread calling NetServerEnum() and simply let it run until the system call returned.
In the mean while the main thread could do other things like for example informing the user that scanning the net takes longer as expected.
I am writing a multithreaded program and i have this question:
Suppose that, while executing in the main thread, i want to terminate all
child-threads. I can't just send them a termination signal cause i want them
to free dynamically allocated memory first. Can i define a specific signal handler
function in each thread function that is executed, which in turn is going to call
a cleanup function that i will write to do so? If not how can i accomplish my goal??
Thanks,
Nikos
Look at the man page for pthread_cancel:
When a cancellation requested is acted on, the following steps occur for
thread (in this order):
1. Cancellation clean-up handlers are popped (in the reverse of the order in
which they were pushed) and called. (See pthread_cleanup_push(3).)
2. Thread-specific data destructors are called, in an unspecified order. (See
pthread_key_create(3).)
3. The thread is terminated. (See pthread_exit(3).)
So you can use pthread_cancel from your main, provided you have registered you cleanup handlers correctly using the above functions.
(Do read that man page completely though, it has a lot of important information.)
Edit: (from comments) If you plan on using PTHREAD_CANCEL_DEFERRED and need to insert a cancellation point somewhere in your code, then use pthread_testcancel. This function checks if a cancellation was requested. If that is the case, the cancellation is serviced (i.e. that call never returns). Otherwise it has no effect.
The most robust strategy requires cooperation from the child threads: you set a flag that the threads periodically check and, when the flag is set, free whatever resources they're using and then terminate.
Cancellation (Mat's answer) is the correct and canonical one, but if you want a different approach, you can install a no-op signal handler using sigaction without the SA_RESTART flag and use pthread_kill with whatever signal number you chose in order to interrupt (EINTR) whatever the thread might have been blocked on. Combined with this, aix's answer works.