I'm writing a multi-threaded program in C, where the main() changes the behavior of some signals and then spawns more threads. The question is: do the other threads continue executing when a signal arrives, or do they pause and resume execution when the signal is handled?
Thanks
do the other threads continue executing when a signal arrives
On Linux they do because a signal is only ever delivered to one thread. Unless the signal is SIGSTOP, which stops all threads of a process. See man signal(7) and man pthreads(7) for more details (ignore LinuxThreads info related to old threads implementation).
Although POSIX does not require that, so these details are OS specific.
Related
I'm sending a signal from a module in the kernel space to a process. This process has one thread waiting for the signal.
I read the signal manual and it says:
The signal disposition is a per-process attribute: in a multithreaded application, including the disposition of a signal is the same for all threads.
Thus, and according to the manual pthread_sigmask:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_sigmask.3.html
I'm trying to block the signal in the main function of the application by calling:
siginfo_t infoh1;
sigset_t waith1;
sigemptyset(&waith1);
sigaddset(&waith1, SIG_HILO1);
pthread_sigmask( SIG_BLOCK, &waith1, NULL );
Note that the thread is waiting for it in its execution function.
result = sigwaitinfo (&waith1, &infoh1);
The signal is sent, but the thread never receives it (it hangs waiting).
What am I doing wrong? I tested with different codes from different websites without success.
I use signals a lot in my *nix code and I don't think this is a good approach.
I recommend that all threads are set to ignore signals. The main process handles the signal while the thread sits on a mutex/condition. On signal the main process sets a global static flag with the signal type and then notifies the thread which duly checks the flag to see which signal was caught.
It's a safe and easy solution.
I'm trying to implement a signal handler.
each pthread is created joinable, and is blocked upon all signals using sigprocmask.
The problem occurs when I send the thread a signal from another thread, using
pthread_kill(_threads[threadIndex], SIGHALT);
If the called pthread is waiting on pthread_join at the time the signal is sent, the whole proccess is terminated immidiately. However, if the thread is not waiting on join, it ignores the signal as expected. Any idea why does it happen and how to change it?
Thank you!
Regarding the use of sigprocmask() in a mutithreaded environment please see this excerpt from the methods's man page:
The use of sigprocmask() is unspecified in a multithreaded process;
see pthread_sigmask(3).
I'm a bit unsure about SIGHALT, but assuming it's a synonym to SIGSTOP the following from pthread_kill()'s man page might be of interest:
Signal dispositions are process-wide: if a signal handler is
installed, the handler will be invoked in the thread thread, but if
the disposition of the signal is "stop", "continue", or "terminate",
this action will affect the whole process.
I have a program in Linux which is multithreaded. There are certain memory areas in which I'm interested to see if they have been written within a certain time period. For that I give only read access to those memory pages and install a signal handler for SIGSEGV. Now my question is, will each thread call the signal handler for itself. Say Thread 1 writes to some forbidden memory area, will it be the one to execute the signal handler?
First of all
Signal dispositions are process-wide;
all threads in a process share the
same disposition for each signal. If
one thread uses sigaction() to
establish a handler for, say, SIGINT,
then that handler may be invoked from
any thread to which the SIGINT is
delivered.
But read on
A signal may be directed to either the
process as a whole or to a specific
thread. A signal is thread-directed if
it is generated as the direct result
of the execution of a specific
hardware instruction within the
context of the thread (SIGBUS, SIGFPE, SIGILL, and SIGSEGV)
I am quoting from TLPI.
No, per the question title.
To the question body: For the particular signal that you are asking for, yes (otherwise: it depends). The thread causing a segfault will receive the signal.
See signal(7):
A signal may be generated (and thus pending) for a process as a whole (e.g.,
when sent using kill(2)) or for a specific thread (e.g., certain signals, such
as SIGSEGV and SIGFPE, generated as a consequence of executing a specific
machine-language instruction are thread directed [...].
While running a thread program and repeatedly killing the main program using Ctrl + C, i see unexpected results in the program in second run. However, if i let the program run and voluntarily exit, there are no issues.
So, my doubt is, does Ctrl + C, kill threads also along with the main process?
Thanks in advance.
In multithreaded programming, signals are delivered to a single thread (usually chosen unpredictably among the threads that don't have that particular signal blocked). However, this does not mean that a signal whose default action is to kill the process only terminates one thread. In fact, there is no way to kill a single thread without killing the whole process.
As long as you leave SIGINT with its default action of terminating the process, it will do so as long as at least one thread leaves SIGINT unblocked. It doesn't matter which thread has it unblocked as long as at least one does, so library code creating threads behind the application's back should always block all signals before calling pthread_create and restore the signal mask in the calling thread afterwards.
Well, the only thing that Ctrl + C does is sending SIGINT to one thread in the process that is not masking the signal. Signals can be handled or ignored.
If the program does handle Ctrl+C, the usual behavior is self-termination, but once again, it could be used for anything else.
In your case, SIGINT is being received by one thread, which probably does kill itself, but does not kill the others.
Under Linux 2.6 using NPTL threads: I am assuming that the process uses the default signal handler, or calls exit() in it: Yes it does. The C library exit() call maps to the exit_group system call which exits all the threads immediately; the default signal handler calls this or something similar.
Under Linux 2.4 using Linuxthreads (or using 2.6 if your app still uses Linuxthreads for some weird reason): Not necessarily.
The Linuxthreads library implements threads using clone(), creating a new process which happens to share its address-space with the parent. This does not necessarily die when the parent dies. To fix this, there is a "master thread" which pthreads creates. This master thread does various things, one of them is to try to ensure that all the threads get killed when the process exits (for whatever reason).
It does not necessarily succeed
If it does succeed, it is not necessarily immediate, particularly if there are a large number of threads.
So if you're using Linuxthreads, possibly not.
The other threads might not exit immediately, or indeed at all.
However, no matter what thread library you use, forked child processes will continue (they might receive the signal if they are still in the same process-group, but can freely ignore it)
Manual has said that setitimer is shared in the whole PROCESS and the SIGPROF is send to the PROCESS not to the thread.
But when I create the timer in my multithread PROCESS, unless I create independent stacks for every thread in the PROCESS to handler the signo, I will got some very serious errors in the sig handler. Through some debugging, I confirm that the stack(sole stack case) must have been reenterd.
So now I suspect that SIGPROFs may be send to multithread at the same time? Thanks!
I don't follow the details of your question but the general case is:
A signal may be generated (and thus pending) for a process as a whole (e.g., when sent using kill(2)) or for a specific thread (e.g., certain signals, such as SIGSEGV and SIGFPE, generated as a consequence of executing a specific machine-language instruction are thread directed, as are signals targeted at a specific thread using pthread_kill(3)). A process-directed signal may be delivered to any one of the threads that does not currently have the signal blocked. If more than one of the threads has the signal unblocked, then the kernel chooses an arbitrary thread to which to deliver the signal.
man (7) signal
You can block the signal for specific threads with pthread_sigmask and by elimination direct it to the thread you want to handle it.
According to POSIX, the alternate signal stack established with sigaltstack is per-thread, and is not inherited by new threads. However, I believe some versions of Linux and/or userspace pthread library code (at least old kernels with LinuxThreads and maybe some versions with NPTL too?) have a bug where the alternate stack is inherited, and of course that will lead to crashing whenever you use the alternate stack. Is there a reason you need alternate stacks? Normally the only purpose is to handle stack overflows semi-gracefully (allowing yourself some stack place to catch SIGSEGV and save any unsaved data before exiting). I would just disable it.
Alternatively, use pthread_sigmask to block SIGPROF in all threads but the main one. Note that, to avoid a nasty race condition here, you need to block it in the main thread before calling pthread_create so that the new thread starts with it blocked, and unblock it after pthread_create returns.