As the Title already says im looking for a way, to get notified when a client closes his Session unnormal.
I'm using the freeBSD OS.
The server is running with Xamount threads (depending on CPUcore amount). So I'm not forking, and there isn't a own process for each client.
That's why sending an deathpackage all time_t seconds, to recive a SIGPIPE isn't an option for me.
But i need to remove left clients from the kqueue, because otherwise after too many accept()'s my code will obviously run into memory troubles.
Is there a way, I can check without high performance loose per client, they are connected or not?
Or any event-notification, that would trigger if this happens? Or maybe is there a way of letting a programm send any signal to a port, even in abnormal termination case, before the Client process will exite?
Edit: that answer misses the question, because it's not about using kqueue. But if someone else finds the question by the title, it may be helpful anyway ...
I've often seen the following behaviour: if a client dies, and the server does a select() on the client's socket descriptor, select() returns with return code > 0 and FD_ISSET( fd ) will be true for that descriptor. But when you now try to read form the socket, read() (or recv()) return ERROR.
For a 'normal' connection using that to detect a client's death works fine for us, but there seems to be a different behaviour when the socket connection is tunneled but we haven't yet managed to figure that out completely.
According to the kqueue man page, kevent() should create an event when the socket has shutdown. From the description of th filter EVFILT_READ:
EVFILT_READ
Takes a descriptor as the identifier, and returns whenever there is data available to read. The behavior of the filter is slightly different depending on the descriptor type.
Sockets
Sockets which have previously been passed to listen() return when there is an incoming connection pending. data contains the size of the listen backlog.
Other socket descriptors return when there is data to be read, subject to the SO_RCVLOWAT value of the socket buffer. This may be overridden with a per-filter low water mark at the time the filter is added by setting the NOTE_LOWAT flag in fflags, and specifying the new low water mark in data. On return, data contains the number of bytes of protocol data available to read.
If the read direction of the socket has shutdown, then the filter also sets EV_EOF in flags, and returns the socket error (if any) in fflags. It is possible for EOF to be returned (indicating the connection is gone) while there is still data pending in the socket
buffer.
Related
I know that, here, on SO, are many questions themed like this. I've read through most of the similar questions and can not find an answer for my case.
I use kqueue for server/client socket echo application. The program uses exclusively BSD socket API. The program is work in progress. Now I am at the point of getting EOF from socket.
My setup follows.
Start server, that waits for connections, and accepts one socket.
Start client that connects.
No user data sent by this time. Close the client with SIGINT.
Server kqueue gets EOF flag with no errors.
read system call returns zero with no errors.
The problem is that I get no indication that connection was fully closed. I can not determine if I have to shutdown read end, or completely close a socket. I get no indication of EOF with the write end. And that is expected, since I did not register for the write event(no data were sent by now).
How to properly tell, if the socket was fully closed?
Update
I know that what follows may belong to other post. I think that this update is tightly connected with the question, and the question will benefit as a whole.
To the point. Since I get a read EOF, but not a write EOF(the socket is closed before any data comes in, or out), can I somehow query socket for its state?
What I learned from other network related questions, here, on SO, that network stack may get some packets on a socket. Like FIN, or RST. It will be a sure win for me to just get the socket state, in the particular case.
As a second option, will it help to add one-time write event after I got a read EOF, just to get a write EOF? Will the write EOF event trigger?
I know I will get write error eventually. But, until that time, the socket will be a dead weight.
It will be of a great convenience to getsockopt for the write end close. Or, at least, queuing an event for read endpoint shutdown, after the read returned EOF.
I did not found similar getsockopt options, and I am not sure about queue'ing write event. The source code for kevent, and a network stack in general, is too tough for me.
That is why I ask.
If read or recv returns 0 then that means the other end closed the connection. It's at least a half-close for writing (from the other peer), which means there's nothing more to be received from that connection.
Unless the protocol specifies that it's only a half-close and that you can continue to send data, it's generally best to simply do a full closing of the connection from your side.
I have to make a simple IRC client/server programs for my IT school. The subject asks us to use select(2) for socket polling but forbids us to use O_NONBLOCK sockets.
Your server will accept multiple simultaneous connections.
Attention, the use of fork is prohibited. So you should imperatively use select
Your server must not be blocking.
This has nothing to do with non-blocking sockets, which are prohibited (so do not use fcntl(s, O_NONBLOCK))
I’m wondering if it is even possible to design a non-blocking server (which does not fork) with blocking sockets even using select(2).
Here is a simple example: let say we have a simple text protocol with one command per line. Each client has a buffer. When select(2) tells us a client is ready for read(2), we read until we found a \n in the client buffer, therefor we process the command. With non-blocking sockets, we would read until EAGAIN.
Let imagine now that we are using blocking sockets and a malicious client sends text with no line-break. select(2) tells us data is available, we then read(2) on the client. But we will never read the expected \n. Instead of returning EAGAIN, the syscall will block indefinitely. This is a denial of service attack.
Is it really possible to design a non-blocking server with blocking-sockets and select(2) (no fork(2))?
Yes, you read once from the socket that select tells you is ready. If the read contains the \n, then process that line. Otherwise, store any data that was received, and immediately go back to the select.
This means of course, that for every open socket, you must maintain state information, and a buffer of data read so far. This allows the code to process each read independently, without the need to finish a full line before going back to the select.
It's impossible.
select() blocks, and therefore so does any program that calls it.
The behaviour defined by Posix for send() in blocking mode is that it blocks until all the data supplied has been transferred to the socket send buffer. Unless you're going to delve into low-water marks and so on, it is impossible to know in advance whether there is enough room in he socket send buffer for any given send() to complete without blocking, and therefore impossible for any program that calls send() not to block.
Note that select() doesn't help you with this. It can tell when you when there is some room, but not when there is enough.
Two cases are well-documented in the man pages for non-blocking sockets:
If send() returns the same length as the transfer buffer, the entire transfer finished successfully, and the socket may or may not be in a state of returning EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK the next call with >0 bytes to transfer.
If send() returns -1 and errno is EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK, none of the transfer finished, and the program needs to wait until the socket is ready for more data (EPOLLOUT in the epoll case).
What's not documented for nonblocking sockets is:
If send() returns a positive value smaller than the buffer size.
Is it safe to assume that the send() would return EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK on even one more byte of data? Or should a non-blocking program try to send() one more time to get a conclusive EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK? I'm worried about putting an EPOLLOUT watcher on the socket if it's not actually in a "would block" state to respond to it coming out of.
Obviously, the latter strategy (trying again to get something conclusive) has well-defined behavior, but it's more verbose and puts a hit on performance.
A call to send has three possible outcomes:
There is at least one byte available in the send buffer →send succeeds and returns the number of bytes accepted (possibly fewer than you asked for).
The send buffer is completely full at the time you call send.
→if the socket is blocking, send blocks
→if the socket is non-blocking, send fails with EWOULDBLOCK/EAGAIN
An error occurred (e.g. user pulled network cable, connection reset by peer) →send fails with another error
If the number of bytes accepted by send is smaller than the amount you asked for, then this consequently means that the send buffer is now completely full. However, this is purely circumstantial and non-authorative in respect of any future calls to send.
The information returned by send is merely a "snapshot" of the current state at the time you called send. By the time send has returned or by the time you call send again, this information may already be outdated. The network card might put a datagram on the wire while your program is inside send, or a nanosecond later, or at any other time -- there is no way of knowing. You'll know when the next call succeeds (or when it doesn't).
In other words, this does not imply that the next call to send will return EWOULDBLOCK/EAGAIN (or would block if the socket wasn't non-blocking). Trying until what you called "getting a conclusive EWOULDBLOCK" is the correct thing to do.
If send() returns the same length as the transfer buffer, the entire transfer finished successfully, and the socket may or may not be in a blocking state.
No. The socket remains in the mode it was in: in this case, non-blocking mode, assumed below throughout.
If send() returns -1 and errno is EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK, none of the transfer finished, and the program needs to wait until the socket is isn't blocking anymore.
Until the send buffer isn't full any more. The socket remains in non-blocking mode.
If send() returns a positive value smaller than the buffer size.
There was only that much room in the socket send buffer.
Is it safe to assume that the send() would block on even one more byte of data?
It isn't 'safe' to 'assume [it] would block' at all. It won't. It's in non-blocking mode. EWOULDBLOCK means it would have blocked in blocking mode.
Or should a non-blocking program try to send() one more time to get a conclusive EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK?
That's up to you. The API works whichever you decide.
I'm worried about putting an EPOLLOUT watcher on the socket if it's not actually blocking on that.
It isn't 'blocking on that'. It isn't blocking on anything. It's in non-blocking mode. The send buffer got filled at that instant. It might be completely empty a moment later.
I don't see what you're worried about. If you have pending data and the last write didn't send it all, select for writability, and write when you get it. If such a write sends everything, don't select for writability next time.
Sockets are usually writable, unless their send buffer is full, so don't select for writability all the time, as you just get a spin loop.
I have to write a chat client-server for a class using unix sockets (without O_NONBLOCK) and select for asynchronous I/O on them. At the moment, on the server, i read 1024 bytes from the client, and directly handle it.
For example, in case of a message, i will receive a command formatted as MSG <msg> (representing a client sending a message), i will go through all the sockets of the connected clients and write the message on them.
This approach actually works but i recently found by reading the man of send that it can blocks if the socket buffer is full and is the flag O_NONBLOCK is not set on the socket.
I think this problem could happen when a client does not read for some reasons (crash, bugged etc.) and this would be critical for my server since it will basically blocks until this client read again.
So here is my question:
What is the correct approach on a potentially blocking socket to avoid send to block if the socket buffer is full?
I'm currently using select only to check if there is something to read on sockets but maybe i should use it also to see if i can write on a particular socket too? And also, can i know how many bytes i can read/write when select returns? For example, if select "tells" that i can write on this socket, how can i know how many bytes i can write at most before writing on this socket actually becomes blocking?
Thanks.
You could use setsockopt() together with SO_SNDTIMEO to set up a maximum amount of time send() will try to do its work.
See man setsockoptand man 7 socket for details.
It might be horrible. If you don't go NONBLOCK-ing mode and calling select(), which internally puts the process on sleep for specific timeout value. That means, fd will be blocked for that specific time period.
This approach actually works but i recently found by reading the man of send that it can blocks if the socket buffer is full and is the flag O_NONBLOCK is not set on the socket.
This is why you use select, but it still isn't reliable, as man select states:
Under Linux, select() may report a socket file descriptor as "ready for reading", while nevertheless a subsequent read blocks. This could for example happen when data has
arrived but upon examination has wrong checksum and is discarded. There may be other circumstances in which a file descriptor is spuriously reported as ready. Thus it may
be safer to use O_NONBLOCK on sockets that should not block.
In C, I understood that if we close a socket, it means the socket will be destroyed and can be re-used later.
How about shutdown? The description said it closes half of a duplex connection to that socket. But will that socket be destroyed like close system call?
This is explained in Beej's networking guide. shutdown is a flexible way to block communication in one or both directions. When the second parameter is SHUT_RDWR, it will block both sending and receiving (like close). However, close is the way to actually destroy a socket.
With shutdown, you will still be able to receive pending data the peer already sent (thanks to Joey Adams for noting this).
None of the existing answers tell people how shutdown and close works at the TCP protocol level, so it is worth to add this.
A standard TCP connection gets terminated by 4-way finalization:
Once a participant has no more data to send, it sends a FIN packet to the other
The other party returns an ACK for the FIN.
When the other party also finished data transfer, it sends another FIN packet
The initial participant returns an ACK and finalizes transfer.
However, there is another "emergent" way to close a TCP connection:
A participant sends an RST packet and abandons the connection
The other side receives an RST and then abandon the connection as well
In my test with Wireshark, with default socket options, shutdown sends a FIN packet to the other end but it is all it does. Until the other party send you the FIN packet you are still able to receive data. Once this happened, your Receive will get an 0 size result. So if you are the first one to shut down "send", you should close the socket once you finished receiving data.
On the other hand, if you call close whilst the connection is still active (the other side is still active and you may have unsent data in the system buffer as well), an RST packet will be sent to the other side. This is good for errors. For example, if you think the other party provided wrong data or it refused to provide data (DOS attack?), you can close the socket straight away.
My opinion of rules would be:
Consider shutdown before close when possible
If you finished receiving (0 size data received) before you decided to shutdown, close the connection after the last send (if any) finished.
If you want to close the connection normally, shutdown the connection (with SHUT_WR, and if you don't care about receiving data after this point, with SHUT_RD as well), and wait until you receive a 0 size data, and then close the socket.
In any case, if any other error occurred (timeout for example), simply close the socket.
Ideal implementations for SHUT_RD and SHUT_WR
The following haven't been tested, trust at your own risk. However, I believe this is a reasonable and practical way of doing things.
If the TCP stack receives a shutdown with SHUT_RD only, it shall mark this connection as no more data expected. Any pending and subsequent read requests (regardless whichever thread they are in) will then returned with zero sized result. However, the connection is still active and usable -- you can still receive OOB data, for example. Also, the OS will drop any data it receives for this connection. But that is all, no packages will be sent to the other side.
If the TCP stack receives a shutdown with SHUT_WR only, it shall mark this connection as no more data can be sent. All pending write requests will be finished, but subsequent write requests will fail. Furthermore, a FIN packet will be sent to another side to inform them we don't have more data to send.
There are some limitations with close() that can be avoided if one uses shutdown() instead.
close() will terminate both directions on a TCP connection. Sometimes you want to tell the other endpoint that you are finished with sending data, but still want to receive data.
close() decrements the descriptors reference count (maintained in file table entry and counts number of descriptors currently open that are referring to a file/socket) and does not close the socket/file if the descriptor is not 0. This means that if you are forking, the cleanup happens only after reference count drops to 0. With shutdown() one can initiate normal TCP close sequence ignoring the reference count.
Parameters are as follows:
int shutdown(int s, int how); // s is socket descriptor
int how can be:
SHUT_RD or 0
Further receives are disallowed
SHUT_WR or 1
Further sends are disallowed
SHUT_RDWR or 2
Further sends and receives are disallowed
This may be platform specific, I somehow doubt it, but anyway, the best explanation I've seen is here on this msdn page where they explain about shutdown, linger options, socket closure and general connection termination sequences.
In summary, use shutdown to send a shutdown sequence at the TCP level and use close to free up the resources used by the socket data structures in your process. If you haven't issued an explicit shutdown sequence by the time you call close then one is initiated for you.
I've also had success under linux using shutdown() from one pthread to force another pthread currently blocked in connect() to abort early.
Under other OSes (OSX at least), I found calling close() was enough to get connect() fail.
"shutdown() doesn't actually close the file descriptor—it just changes its usability. To free a socket descriptor, you need to use close()."1
Close
When you have finished using a socket, you can simply close its file descriptor with close; If there is still data waiting to be transmitted over the connection, normally close tries to complete this transmission. You can control this behavior using the SO_LINGER socket option to specify a timeout period; see Socket Options.
ShutDown
You can also shut down only reception or transmission on a connection by calling shutdown.
The shutdown function shuts down the connection of socket. Its argument how specifies what action to perform:
0
Stop receiving data for this socket. If further data arrives, reject it.
1
Stop trying to transmit data from this socket. Discard any data waiting to be sent. Stop looking for acknowledgement of data already sent; don’t retransmit it if it is lost.
2
Stop both reception and transmission.
The return value is 0 on success and -1 on failure.
in my test.
close will send fin packet and destroy fd immediately when socket is not shared with other processes
shutdown SHUT_RD, process can still recv data from the socket, but recv will return 0 if TCP buffer is empty.After peer send more data, recv will return data again.
shutdown SHUT_WR will send fin packet to indicate the Further sends are disallowed. the peer can recv data but it will recv 0 if its TCP buffer is empty
shutdown SHUT_RDWR (equal to use both SHUT_RD and SHUT_WR) will send rst packet if peer send more data.
linux: shutdown() causes listener thread select() to awake and produce error. shutdown(); close(); will lead to endless wait.
winsock: vice versa - shutdown() has no effect, while close() is successfully catched.