I have a linux computer with a code in C that must communicate in UDP with 4 differents equipments. The computer sends differents commands to each equipment and receives responses, sometimes in parallel ...
I am a perfect beginner, and managed to communicate with one equipment using UDP socket. But now, i'm looking for a way to communicate with all these equipments, what i would like to call "multiple socket", but i don't know where to look/ what word to search to find a way ...
My linux computer is the client and all the equipment servers. I only have one eth port on the computer and will have to use a switch to have access to all the equipment. I would like to create functions like :
sendcmd(IPnumber, PORTnumber, cmd , ...)
readbuff(IPnumber, PORTnumber, buff, ...)
so i can choose which IP will received cmd ... i don't know if it's possible or if i need to open the socket, then close and redo the operation with another IP ...
So, if I ever managed to make myself understood, where should I look for a solution to my problem?
Thank you !
You can use a single UDP socket for your scenario. You can keep the socket open for the lifetime of your application.
UDP is not connection oriented. UDP sockets are also not classified into client sockets and server sockets. UDP sockets are always bound to a local port, either implicitly (typically for pure clients) or explicitly (which is usually the case for servers). In your case you do not care about the port for your UDP client.
To send to your four UDP server you can use sendto(). This lets you specify the destination IP address and port the UDP packet gets sent to.
To receive from your four UDP servers you can use recvfrom(). This will tell the IP address and port where the UDP packet came from.
You most likely want to have a receive loop of some kind. If you want to do anything else in your application you most likely want to either make recvfrom() non-blocking or you want to have the receive loop in its own thread. But this goes beyond your question.
The most important aspect of UDP is that it is not a protocol (despite its name which is misleading). It is one puzzle piece for a protocol. It is a tool to develop your own protocol. But I assume you already have a specific protocol at hand defined by your peripherals.
Related
I need to write a proxy server in C language on Linux (Ubuntu 20.04). The purpose of this proxy server is as follows. There're illogical governmental barriers in accessing the free internet. Some are:
Name resolution: I ping telegram.org and many other sites which the government doesn't want me to access. I ask 8.8.8.8 to resolve the name, but they response of behalf of the server that the IP may be resolved to 10.10.34.35!
Let's concentrate on this one, because when this is solved many other problems will be solved too. For this, I need to setup such a configuration:
A server outside of my country is required. I prepared it. It's a VPS. Let's call it RS (Remote Server).
A local proxy server is required. Let's call it PS. PS runs on the local machine (client) and knows RS's IP. I need it to gather all requests going to be sent through the only NIC available on client, process them, scramble them, and send them to RS in a way to be hidden from the government.
The server-side program should be running on RS on a specific port to get the packet, unscramble it, and send it to the internet on behalf of the client. After receiving the response from the internet, it should send it back to the client via the PS.
PS will deliver the response to the client application which originates the request. Of course this happens after it will unscramble and will find the original response from the internet.
This is the design and some parts is remained gloomy for me. Since I'm not an expert in network programming context, I'm going to ask my questions in the parts I'm getting into trouble or are not clear for me.
Now, I'm in part 2. See whether I'm right. There're two types of sockets, a RAW socket and a stream socket. A RAW socket is opened this way:
socket(AF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(ETH_P_ALL));
And a stream socket is opened this way:
socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
For RAW sockets, we use sockaddr_ll and for stream sockets we use sockaddr_in. May I use stream sockets between client applications and PS? I think not, because I need the whole RAW packet. I should know the protocol and maybe some other info of the packet, because the whole packet should be retrieved transparently in RS. For example, I should know whether it has been a ping packet (ICMP) or a web request (TCP). For this, I need to have packet header in PS. So I can't use a stream socket, because it doesn't contain the packet header. But until now, I've used RAW sockets for interfaces and have not written a proxy server to receive RAW packets. Is it possible? In another words, I've the following questions to go to next step:
Can a RAW socket be bound to localhost:port instead of an interface so that it may receive all low-level packets containing packet headers (RAW packets)?
I may define a proxy server for browser. But can I put the whole system behind the proxy server so that packets of other apps like PING may route automatically via it?
Do I really need RAW sockets in PS? Can't I change the design to suffice the data I got from the packets payload?
Maybe I'm wrong in some of the concepts and will appreciate your guidance.
Thank you
Can a RAW socket be bound to localhost:port instead of an interface so that it may receive all low-level packets containing packet headers (RAW packets)?
No, it doesn't make sense. Raw packets don't have port numbers so how would it know which socket to go to?
It looks like you are trying to write a VPN. You can do this on Linux by creating a fake network interface called a "tun interface". You create a tun interface, and whenever Linux tries to send a packet through the interface, instead of going to a network cable, it goes to your program! Then you can do whatever you like with the packet. Of course, it works both ways - you can send packets from your program back to Linux through the tun interface, and Linux will act like they just arrived on a network cable.
Then, you can set up your routing table so that all traffic goes to the tun interface, except for traffic to the VPN server ("RS"), which goes to your real ethernet/wifi interface. Otherwise you'd have an endless loop where your VPN program PS tried to send packets to RS but they just went back to PS.
I'm attempting to have two daemons running on the same port and IP but one is a server and the other is a client. Is there a method using socket options that would allow each socket to have a copy of the packet and let the daemons filter out the messages based on the protocol? It looks like reuse address blocks the first configured port and reuse port might just balance the packet between the two daemons.
Otherwise, I guess create another daemons to read the socket and send the packets to the correct daemon.
Thanks
You are correct at the end, you will need to have a third part that binds to the port and forwards the packets to the correct daemon.
The other way to do it would be to use three ports and use a firewall to redirect from the front end port to the backend ports; but that is a lot more complicated and not portable. But in the end you could use QOS or something. There is a wide range of possible types of use case behind the word protocol.
If the UDP packets you are receiving are multicast or broadcast packets, then you can set SO_REUSEADDR (and, for BSD-based OS's, SO_REUSEPORT) on the socket (using setsockopt()) before bind()-ing the socket, and then both sockets will receive a copy of each incoming UDP packet. (If the UDP packets are regular old unicast packets, OTOH, then doing the above will result in each received packet being received by only one of the two UDP sockets, which isn't what you want).
Note, however: You refer to the two daemons as being a "client" and a "server" -- the implication of those terms is that the two daemons are going to communicate with each other. If that is the case, then the typical approach would be to have the server-daemon bind to a well-known port number, and the client-daemon could bind to any port number (e.g. it could pass 0 as the port-number to bind(), and let the OS choose an available port-number for it). Then the client-daemon could start the conversation by sending one or more UDP packets to the server's well-known port number, and the server can find out which port the client is sending from (and therefore what port to send reply packets to) by examining the fifth argument of its recvfrom() call. In this case there is no need for the two programs to bind to the same port, and therefore no need for packet-forwarding.
Currently, I have working, functioning code to pass messages between two programs I have written. Here's the scheme I'm using:
Program A
a_tx_socket -> Send Data on 127.0.0.1, Port A
a_rx_socket -> Receive Data on 127.0.0.1, Port B
Program B
b_tx_socket -> Send Data on 127.0.0.1, Port B
b_rx_socket -> Receive Data on 127.0.0.1, Port A
Note that I call bind() on the sockets that receive data (a_rx_socket and b_rx_socket). Each socket is created with a call to the socket() system call.
Now, for my question... is there a way to get rid of one port? Namely can I send/receive on the loopback address using only one port? How would I make sure that Program A/B does not receive data that it sent? Is this worth exploring for any reason (performance/maintainability/fun/etc)?
Only one process at a time can bind to a given socket address. Subsequent attempts to bind will get EADDRINUSE, meaning that the address is already in use.
For ip addresses, the socket address is made up of the port and the IP address. See 'man 7 ip' for details.
Therefore, you need two ports, because otherwise only one of your two programs would be able to bind (and therefore receive packets).
If your pair of programs is always going to be on the same machine, you might want to use unix domain sockets instead, as they would be more efficient for that use case.
I am writing on UDP server/client application.
I want my single server to handle 40 clients at a time. For this, I want to create 40 dedicated threads, each dedicated for one single client. Since there are 40 threads one for each client, I want to create 40 dedicated sockets as well.
But the problem that:
I don't know what will be the 40 IP addresses to which I shall bind() my sockets. (since as far as I now, I have to bind() to my Server\s IP address.) Normally I bind() to "INADDR_ANY" when there is only single socket.
But what should be the IP addresses at which I should bind() each of my 40 sockets?
Please help me. Any comment/ help is appreciated.
One common way to do this with UDP is:
Server bind() to a well known port.
Client sends the initial packet to that well known port
Server receive the first packet from a client on the well known port.
Server creates a new socket with a random port
Server replies to the client from this new socket.
Client receives the reply, notices it comes from another port than the well known
server port, and uses that port as the destination for further communication.
You'll use the getpeername() call to learn the remote address.
Keep in mind that UDP is connection-less, you'll need some way to signal the end or time out you sockets.
bind only needs the local address, not the remote address.
If you want one socket for each client, then you'll need to use different ports for each (using bind). That way, each client can send its traffic to a dedicated port, and you can have a thread for each socket/port.
It's probably a better idea to only have one socket (and one port) though, and have logic in your code to assign traffic to a thread based on the remote address (retrieved using recvfrom eg.).
The usual way is to bind a single socket and accept incoming connections. Each connection will be assigned a unique socket by accept.
As you are using UDP, I would simply use TCP as described above to let the clients know of their respective server UDP addresses.
Create a single listening socket in a dedicated listening thread.
When it receives a new packet, use the packet's remote addr/port, or put a unique clientID in the packet payload, to uniquely identify the client.
Create a new thread for that client if one does not already exist, pass the packet to that thread for further processing, and go back to listening.
If a given client thread does not receive any packets for awhile, it can terminate itself.
I am writing a simple sender and receiver program to transit using UDP so it's connectionless, but I am having a problem figuring out whether my receiver program needs to call bind() or the server and/or both. My receiver program(client) will sit in an infinite loop waiting to receive data from the sender(server) and then it will print out the data. I'm not quite sure what bind() does exactly besides associating an address/port with a specific socket. Why is it that I need to call bind()?
You need to call bind(2) so that the OS knows which application to route network packets to. When you call bind with a specific port for a given protocol (e.g. TCP or UDP), you're asking it "whenever you see a network packet on port XXXXX, please give it to me".
Say, for example, that two copies of your program were running, and they both wanted to listen for UDP packets on the same port. If they both call bind on the same port, then one will succeed and one will fail, since the OS can arbitrate who is bound to each port. Then, any packet received on that port will be given to whichever instance of the program succeeded at binding to that port.
when you want to make a socket a fixed address or/and port, you use bind.
See you when developing a Network Application you need to specify "Address and Port" to Bind because if you want to set it for Localhost your application is not able to communicate with the all over the network its only for your system which its communicating.. If you set it with your Network address it's not able to communicate as localhost Its only communicate with the network and If you set it to 0 then It can be use as both for localhost and Network.