I am working on a simple C program where there are two source files: server.c and client.c
I connected everything properly with sockets, and I use the poll() function to poll the keyboard for data (as well as a shell connected to a pipe).
I am able to detect when the client uses the ^D and ^C command to know to kill the child process, and exit both client and server terminals.
However, is there a way to detect if the client hangs up (i.e. I explicitly click x on the client terminal tab)? Because right now, the server tab doesn't detect this, and doesn't close. I want to avoid using a timeout
You can continuously probe the client socket with the recv() sys call. It is designed to return 0 when the client disconnects.
while (1) {
//Get request from client, leave if client quits
if (recv(client_socket, client_request, sizeof(client_request), 0) == 0) {
break;
}
}
OR
// This while condition will fail when recv returns 0, because C
while (recv(client_socket, client_request, sizeof(client_request), 0)) {
// insert code here
}
Hope this helps 🤓
Related
I have implemented end_server() method using some volatile flag should_server_end = true/false. I have used non-blocking connection sockets to enable checking this flag between consecutive recv() calls. It works fine. But I have read about using shutdown(sock, SHUT_RDWR) called from the main thread that can stop the server (and its connections) running in the background. I would like to try this approach in my app and implement some alternative methods instead of end_server() like shutdown_server().
I have tried something like this:
int pasv_sock = server_info_sock(server_info);
if(shutdown(pasv_sock, SHUT_RDWR) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "shutdown: failed! %s\n", strerror(errno));
return FAILURE;
}
But now I am getting error message:
shutdown: failed! Socket is not connected
which means shutdown() return this error code:
ENOTCONN
The specified socket is not connected.
1. Can I only use shutdown on active (connection) sockets and not on passive (server) socket. Should I just use close()?
Next I change shutdown() to close() on passive socket, and then nothing happens. No errors but as in the previous method with shutdown connection still works correctly and I can send() and recv() packets of data.
2. Does it mean that close()-ing passive socket only stops possibility of making new connections with the server (server will no longer accept connections?)
So I have changed the code to something like this:
static void shutdown_conn_sock_data_handler(void *data, size_t data_size) {
sock_fd_t *conn_sock = (sock_fd_t *) data;
printf("Connection sock: %d closing...!\n", *conn_sock);
if(shutdown(*conn_sock, SHUT_RDWR) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "shutdown: failed! %s\n", strerror(errno));
return;
}
}
server_info_set_force_shut_down(server_info, 1);
const linked_list_t *conn_socks = server_info_conn_socks(server_info);
linked_list_travers(conn_socks, shutdown_conn_sock_data_handler);
int pasv_sock = server_info_sock(server_info);
if(close(pasv_sock) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "close: failed! %s\n", strerror(errno));
return FAILURE;
}
return SUCCESS;
}
It works now but this need also some flag to give the hint information about the closed server, otherwise, it will be closed with some error message as trying to accept new connections on the already closed passive socket.
So before trying to accept a new connection I need to check like this:
while(1) {
if(server_info_should_shut_down(server_info)) {
return CLOSED;
}
if(server_info_force_shut_down(server_info)) {
return FORCE_CLOSED;
}
As you can see such a force close approach doesn't differ much from lazy shutdown when I just set volatile should_shut_down flag and wait for the server to detect this and close in a regular way. The only benefit is that I possibly no longer have to have:
non-blocking connection sockets in connection_handlers (this functions are supplied by client code using server api)
before each client code need to set:
fcntl(sock_fd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
to enable server self-closing.
*client - means programmer using server API, not client side of TCP communication.
moreover there was need to place after each recv failing without new request data
if ((errno == EAGAIN) || (errno == EWOULDBLOCK)) {
// call to recv() on non-blocking socket result with nothing to receive
continue;
}
and client-code needs to add in connection_handler in between each client-side request:
if(server_info_should_shut_down(server_info))
return CLOSED;
So implementing this shutdown_server() method instead of end_server()
I can hide implementation details inside server API and allow user of this API to provide simpler and cleaner connection handler. Just recv/send logic without need to inject some special code that enables the server to be closable!
3. Is it this new approach with shutdown() correct? Didn't I missed anything?
Can I only use shutdown on active (connection) sockets and not on passive (server) socket.
Yes.
Should I just use close()?
Yes.
Next I change shutdown() to close() on passive socket, and then nothing happens. No errors but as in the previous method with shutdown connection still works correctly and I can send() and recv() packets of data.
Correct. That's how it works.
Does it mean that close()-ing passive socket only stops possibility of making new connections with the server (server will no longer accept connections?)
Yes. It doesn't affect existing accepted sockets.
Is it this new approach with shutdown() correct? Didn't I missed anything?
You should not shutdown the sockets for output. That will cause errors at both ends: this end, because it may write to a shutdown socket, and the other end because it will receive a truncation.
All you need to to is shutdown each accepted socket for input (i.e. SHUT_RD). That will cause the next recv() on that socket to return zero,meaning the peer disconneceted, whereupon the existing code should already close the socket and exit the thread.
I have to use a fifo in my code.
I use sock to accept new client. For each client I create new thread to send and receive message to him.
In the function of the thread I use fifo to send and receive messages also to another process and here is my code:
int s_to_c=open(myfifo1,O_WRONLY);
int c_to_s=open(myfifo2,O_RDONLY);
char echoBuffer[RCVBUFSIZE];
int recvMsgSize;
for(;;)
{
bzero(echoBuffer,RCVBUFSIZE);
read(c_to_s, echoBuffer, RCVBUFSIZE);
write(sock, echoBuffer, strlen(echoBuffer));
bzero(echoBuffer,RCVBUFSIZE);
read(sock, echoBuffer, RCVBUFSIZE);
write(s_to_c,echoBuffer,strlen(echoBuffer));
}
close(c_to_s);
close(s_to_c);
close(sock);
And on the other side (The other process) my code:
int s_to_c=open(myfifo1,O_RDONLY);
int c_to_s=open(myfifo2,O_WRONLY);
char echoBuffer[RCVBUFSIZE];
int recvMsgSize;
for(;;)
{
bzero(echoBuffer,RCVBUFSIZE);
fgets(echoBuffer,RCVBUFSIZE,stdin);
echoBuffer[strlen(echoBuffer)-1]='\0';
write(c_to_s, echoBuffer, strlen(echoBuffer));
bzero(echoBuffer,RCVBUFSIZE);
read(s_to_c, echoBuffer, RCVBUFSIZE);
printf("%s\n", echoBuffer);
}
My problem is in this process : s_to_c and c_to_s take always the value(3,4).
So the first client connect correctly sending and receiving his message.
But when the second connect the first client become disable.And the messages of the second client sends and receives to and from the two processes.
Can I have some help please.Should I have to use tags for example??
select() allows you to check the status of a file descriptor (in your case the ones connected to your pipes). When select() returns, it tells you which pipes have data to process. That way, you can monitor many pipes in the server process.
The client process will always use the file descriptors 3 and 4 for the pipes since those are the first free ones after the stdio (0=stdin, 1=stdout, 2=stderr). So that is correct.
If you see the combination of 3 and 4 on your server as well, then you have a bug in the code where you create the pipes, not in the place where you use them.
If you use Linux, there is an easy way to see what a file descriptor is connected to: Look into /proc/PID/fd/ (replace PID with ID of the process that you want to examine) or use lsof -n -p PID (which shows a lot of other things as well like loaded shared libraries).
I wrote a tcp server program(linux c) and run it on host B
if host A establishes a TCP connection with host B
then A shutdown without sending FIN/ACK
how do I write source codes inside tcp server to kill this tcp connection?
use raw socket to craft s fake RST?
or other ways?
thanks!
Just close() the server's end of the socket once it has determined that the connection is no longer available. Eventually, the socket will time out internally and start reporting errors to read/write operations, at which time you can then close it. If you do not want to wait that long then implement a timeout in your own code, either as a keepalive/ping command in your protocol, or just as a simple timer that keeps track of the last time the client exchanged any data with the server. If the timeout period expires, close the socket regardless of its actual state.
I'm not sure in this case, but if you create a binary file with all the open connections:
FILE *ptr_myfile;
ptr_myfile=fopen("test.bin","wb"); //opened sockets
//.. your code ..
sockfd[k] = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
fwrite(&sockfd[k], sizeof(sockfd[k]), 1, ptr_myfile_soc);
//.. your code ..
close(ptr_myfile);
and if host A shuts down without sending FIN/ACK, in another executable you will read from that file and close the related sockets:
fread(&sockfd[k],sizeof(sockfd[k]),1,ptr_myfile_soc);
printf("closing %d \n",k );
close(sockfd[k]);
I am building a server client model in C. The clients connects to the server and they start exchanging data. However, the user can end the client at any time in the program, but the server is not notified about it. The server keeps sending that data even after the client is closed.
I was in the impression that send function will return -1 if the server is unable to send the data, but my server program just stuck at send
if((byteSent = send(new_fd, fileContents, strlen(fileContents), 0)) == -1){ //
the program just halts at the above line.
How do I overcome this problem?
//Code
exitT = 0;
//execution_count = 1;
for(i=0;i<execution_count;i++)
{
sleep(time_delay);
//getting the current time on the server machine
time_t t;
time(&t);
char *time=ctime(&t);
printf("The Execution time at server = %s\n",time);
system(exec_command);
/*Open the file, get file size, read the contents and close the file*/
// Open the file
fp = fopen(fileName,"r");
// Get File Size
fseek(fp,0,SEEK_END);
dataLength = ftell(fp);
rewind(fp);
fileContents = (char*)malloc(dataLength+1);
// Read File
fread(fileContents,1,dataLength,fp);
fileContents[dataLength] = '\0';
// Close file
fclose(fp);
printf("sockfd = %d \n",new_fd);
// send file length to client
rc=send(new_fd, &dataLength, sizeof(dataLength), 0) ;
printf("length of client data = %d \n",rc);
printf("sockfd = %d \n",new_fd);
// send time to client
rc=send(new_fd, time, strlen(time), 0) ;
printf("length of client time = %d \n",rc);
usleep(20000);
// Send file contents to Client
while(dataLength>0){
printf("sockfd = %d \n",new_fd);
if((byteSent = send(new_fd, fileContents, strlen(fileContents), 0)) == -1){
printf("bytes sent = %d \n",byteSent);
exitT = 1;
break;
}
dataLength-=byteSent;
}
//Delete the log file
sprintf(deleteCommand,"rm %s",fileName);
system(deleteCommand);
if(exitT == 1)
break;
}
bzero(fileName,sizeof(fileName));
bzero(exec_command,sizeof(exec_command));
bzero(deleteCommand,sizeof(deleteCommand));
//decClientNum();
kill(parent_id,SIGALRM);
close(new_fd); // parent doesn't need this
printf("STATUS = CLOSED\n");
exit(0);
}
Thanks
I assume you are coding for a Linux or Posix system.
When a syscall like send fails it returns -1 and sets the errno; you very probably should use errno to find out why it failed.
You could use strace to find out which syscalls are done by your sever, or some other one. Of course, use also the gdb debugger.
You very probably need to multiplex inputs or outputs. The system calls doing that are poll, select (and related ppoll and pselect). Read e.g. the select_tut(2) man page.
You may want to use (or at least to study the source code of) existing event oriented libraries like libevent, libev etc.. (Both Gtk and Qt frameworks provide also their own, which might be used even outside of GUI applications).
I strongly suggest reading about advanced unix programming and unix network programing (and perhaps also about advanced linux programming).
maybe you're using a tcp protocol and the server is waiting for an ACK. Try using udp if you want your connection to be asynchronous.
From the man page: No indication of failure to deliver is implicit in a send(). Locally detected errors are indicated by a return value of -1.
Proably something like this might help: http://stefan.buettcher.org/cs/conn_closed.html
I think I am pretty late in the party, but I think this answer might help someone.
If space is not available at the sending socket to hold the message to be transmitted, and the socket file descriptor does not have O_NONBLOCK set, send() shall block until space is available.
When send() function gets stuck, there might be a situation like, TCP window size has become 0. It happens when the other end of the connection is not consuming received data.
There might be a scenario like this, the receiving end process is running by GDB and segfault occurred.
The TCP connection remains established.
Data is being send continuously.
The receiver end is not consuming it.
Consequently the receiver TCP window size will keep decreasing and you can send data till it is greater than zero. Once it becomes 0, send() function will get stuck forever.
As the situation mentioned in the question is not a scenario of closed connection. When a process writes something on a closed TCP connection, it receives a signal SIGPIPE. Default handler of SIGPIPE terminates the process. So, in a closed connection scenario if you are not using your own SIGPIPE handler then process should be terminated by default handler whenever something is written on the socket.
I implemented a client-server program that allows to transfer files b/w them. The server is using select() to check changes of sockets.
Every test is good except this one:
- When server is sending a huge file to client (not yet finished), client hit "Ctrl-C" to kill the client program, then the server is killed too :(
The snippet:
fprintf(stderr,"Reading done, sending ...\n");
if(send(sockClient, sendBuf, chunk_length, 0) < 0)
{
printf("Failed to send through socket %d \n", sockClient);
return -1;
}
fprintf(stderr,"Sending done\n");
When the client is killed, the server terminal displays:
user$./server
Reading done, sending ...
Sending done
Reading done, sending ...
Sending done
Reading done, sending ...
Sending done
Reading done, sending ...
user$
What's wrong with it?
Thanks for your answers!
You probably want to ignore SIGPIPE. Try adding something like this in your server startup:
#include <signal.h>
signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
The send() call may be used only when the socket is in a connected state (so that the intended recipient is known). the return is the bytescount sent...
if(send(sockClient, sendBuf, chunk_length, 0) < 0)
so when disconnected, it skipped out...
MSG_NOSIGNAL is not portable and will not be available on Windows.