Is it possible to write to a file that was created with _O_TEMPORARY and then later read the data that was written to that file? I've tried flushing the buffer, but that doesn't seem to work: subsequent _read() calls still return 0 bytes.
Obviously closing the file after writing and opening it again won't work since closing the file will delete it (that's what _O_TEMPORARY does), so what alternative is there?
Related
Assuming a plain text file, foo.txt, and two processes:
Process A, a shell script, overwrites the file in regular intervals
$ echo "example" > foo.txt
Process B, a C program, reads from the file in regular intervals
fopen("foo.txt", "r"); getline(buf, len, fp); fclose(fp);
In the C program, keeping the FILE* fp open after the initial fopen(), doing a rewind() and reading again does not seem to reflect the changes that have happened to the file in the meantime. Is the only way to see the updated contents by doing an fclose() and fopen() cycle, or is there a way to re-use the already opened FILE handle, yet reading the most recently written data?
For context, I'm simply trying to find the most efficient way of doing this.
On Unix/Linux, when you create a file with a name which already existed, the old file is not deleted or altered in any way. A new file is created and the directory is updated to point at the new file instead of the old one.
The old file will continue to exist as long as some directory entry points at it (Unix file systems allow the same file to be pointed to by multiple directories) or some program has an open file handle to the file, which is more relevant to your question.
As long as you don't close fp, it continues to refer to the original file, even if that file is no longer referenced by the filesystem. When you close fp, the file will get garbage collected automatically, and the next time you open foo.txt, you'll get a file descriptor for whatever file happens to have that name at that point in time.
In short, with the shell script you indicate, your C program must close and reopen the file in order to see the new contents.
Theoretically, it would be possible for the shell script to overwrite the same file without deleting it, but (a) that's tricky to get right; (b) it's prone to race conditions; and (c) closing and reopening the file is not that time-consuming. But if you did that, you would see the changes. [Note 1]
In particular, it's common (and easy) to append to an existing file, and if you have a shell script which does that, you can keep the file descriptor open and see the changes. However, in that case you would normally have already read to the end of the file before the new data was appended, and the standard C library treats the feof() indicator as sticky; once it gets set, you will continue to get an EOF indication from new reads. If you suspect that some process will be writing more data to the file, you should reset the EOF indication with fseek(fp, 0, SEEK_CUR); before retrying the read.
Notes
As #amadan points out in a comment, there are race conditions with echo text > foo.txt as well, although the window is a bit shorter. But you can definitely avoid race conditions by using the idiom echo text > temporary_file; mv -f temporary_file foo.txt, because the rename operation is atomic. Of course, that would definitely require you to close and reopen the file. But it's a good idea, particularly if the contents being written are long or critical, or if new files are created frequently.
I've got a case, when I need to read a file data, do some data processing and write processed data into the file by overwriting it's content.
I tried to use OpenOptions with read, write and truncate options, but truncate option makes file empty before I can read it, write option starts writing at the end of the file (appending).
I tried some ways, like f.set_len, but it sets some unreadable bytes at the beginning of the file with no reason, f.rewind just puts writing content before the original file beginning...
From the documentation:
pub fn write(&mut self, write: bool) -> &mut Self
Sets the option for write access.
This option, when true, will indicate that the file should be
write-able if opened.
If the file already exists, any write calls on it will overwrite its
contents, without truncating it.
You should not read the file while writing on it. You may have some options:
Read the file content entirely. Close the file process and open again for reading.
Read the file, process, and write to another file. When finished overwrite the original one with the new.
I made a C program that reads a string from a .txt file, then it encrypts the string, and finally it writes the string in the same file.
The thing is that if I use fopen("D:\\Prueba.txt","w+"), the program doesn't work, it prints garbage like this )PHI N.
I've debugged and I know the error is there in that line, because if I use fopen("D:\\Prueba.txt","r+"), the program works, and it writes what it should.
But I want to use w+ because it will rewrite what the .txt file had. Why is w+ not working?
If you're opening with w+ to first read the content, that's not going to work. From C11:
w+: truncate to zero length or create text file for update.
What's probably happening is that you read data from the now empty file but don't correctly check that it worked. That would explain the weird "content" you see of )PHI N.
One solution is to open the file as with r, open another file with w, and transfer the contents, encrypting them as part of that process. Then close both, delete the original, and rename the new one to the original name. This will allow you to process arbitrarily-sized files since you process them a bit at a time.
If you don't want to use a temporary file, and you're sure you can store the entire content in memory, you could open it r+, get the content, the reopen it with a new mode, such as with:
FILE *readFh = fopen( "myfile.txt", "r+");
// Read in content, massage as needed.
FILE *writeFh = frepoen( NULL, "w+", readFh);
// Provided that worked, you should now have an empty file to write to.
// Write back your massaged data.
I have a save file containing a stream of program events. The program may read the file and execute the events to restore a previous state (say between program invocations). After that any new events are appended to this file.
I could open the file once as read-write (fopen rw), not exposing the usage pattern.
But I wonder if there are any benefits of opening it as read-only at first (fopen r) and later re-opening it as append (freopen a). Would there be any appearent difference?
In your case there may not be any specific benefits, but primary use of freopen is to change the file associated with standard text stream (stdin, stdout, stderr). It may effect the readability of your code if you use if on normal files. In your case you first open in read-only mode, but if you are opening the stream as output there are few things about freopen that we need to keep in mind.
On Linux, freopen may also fail and set errno to EBUSY when the kernel structure for the old file descriptor was not initialized completely before freopen was called
freopen should not be used on output streams because it ignores errors while closing the old file descriptor.
Read about freopen and possible error conditions with fclose in GNU manual: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Opening-Streams.html#Opening-Streams
No there are no specific benefits of opening the file as Read Only and then reopening in Append mode. If you require changes in files during program execution than better if you open it in as per mode.
Consider the following scenario: I am opening a tar file (say abc.tar.gz), writing the data, and before closing the file descriptor, I am trying to extract the same file.
I am unable to do so. But if I extract the file after having closing the fd, it works fine.
I wonder what could be the reason.
All files has a position where data is read or written. After writing to the file, the position is at the end. Trying to read will attempt to read from that position. You have to change the position to the beginning of the file with a function like lseek.
Also, you did open the file in both read and write mode?
Edit
After reading your comments, I see you do not actually read the file from inside your program, but from an external program. Then it might be as simple as you not flushing the file to disk, which happens automatically when closing a file. You might want to check the fsync function for that, or possible the sync function.