I need to create two child processes. One child needs to run the command "ls -al" and redirect its output to the input of the next child process, which in turn will run the command "sort -r -n -k 5" on its input data. Finally, the parent process needs to read that (data already sorted) and display it in the terminal. The final result in the terminal (when executing the program) should be the same as if I entered the following command directly in the shell: "ls -al | sort -r -n -k 5". For this I need to use the following methods: pipe(), fork(), execlp().
My program compiles, but I don't get the desired output to the terminal. I don't know what is wrong. Here is the code:
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main()
{
int fd[2];
pid_t ls_pid, sort_pid;
char buff[1000];
/* create the pipe */
if (pipe(fd) == -1) {
fprintf(stderr, "Pipe failed");
return 1;
}
/* create child 2 first */
sort_pid = fork();
if (sort_pid < 0) { // error creating Child 2 process
fprintf(stderr, "\nChild 2 Fork failed");
return 1;
}
else if(sort_pid > 0) { // parent process
wait(NULL); // wait for children termination
/* create child 1 */
ls_pid = fork();
if (ls_pid < 0) { // error creating Child 1 process
fprintf(stderr, "\nChild 1 Fork failed");
return 1;
}
else if (ls_pid == 0) { // child 1 process
close(1); // close stdout
dup2(fd[1], 1); // make stdout same as fd[1]
close(fd[0]); // we don't need this end of pipe
execlp("bin/ls", "ls", "-al", NULL);// executes ls command
}
wait(NULL);
read(fd[0], buff, 1000); // parent reads data
printf(buff); // parent prints data to terminal
}
else if (sort_pid == 0) { // child 2 process
close(0); // close stdin
dup2(fd[0], 0); // make stdin same as fd[0]
close(fd[1]); // we don't need this end of pipe
execlp("bin/sort", "sort", "-r", "-n", "-k", "5", NULL); // executes sort operation
}
return 0;
}
Your parent process waits for the sort process to finish before creating the ls process.
The sort process needs to read its input before it can finish. And its input is coming from the ls that won't be started until after the wait. Deadlock.
You need to create both processes, then wait for both of them.
Also, your file descriptor manipulations aren't quite right. In this pair of calls:
close(0);
dup2(fd[0], 0);
the close is redundant, since dup2 will automatically close the existing fd 0 if there is one. You should do a close(fd[0]) after ther dup2, so you only have one file descriptor tied to that end of the pipe. And if you want to be really robust, you should test wither fd[0]==0 already, and in that case skip the dup2 and close.
Apply all of that to the other dup2 also.
Then there's the issue of the parent process holding the pipe open. I'd say you should close both ends of the pipe in the parent after you've passed them on to the children, but you have that weird read from fd[0] after the last wait... I'm not sure why that's there. If the ls|sort pipeline has run correctly, the pipe will be empty afterward, so there will be nothing to read. In any case, you definitely need to close fd[1] in the parent, otherwise the sort process won't finish because the pipe won't indicate EOF until all writers are closed.
After the weird read is a printf that will probably crash, since the read buffer won't be '\0'-terminated.
And the point of using execlp is that it does the $PATH lookup for you so you don't have to specify /bin/. My first test run failed because my sort is in /usr/bin/. Why hardcode paths when you don't have to?
Related
I am new to using pipes and forking in general. What I want to do is create a program that will execute the "cat" function in bash indirectly such that I can send input to cat through my program and receive the output in a text file.
I am having two problems:
Using the execvp function, is there a way of running "cat" without being forced to interact with the prompts, and instead send input through C?
The other issue is catching the input from the cat and writing it to a text file.
For instance, if I wrote something like
send_cat("hi");
send_cat("hello");
Then in the text file it would read
hi
hello
The solution to the problem you're describing involves the use of the pipe() system call and the dup2 system call.
Basically, you'd set up a pipe() between the parent and child processes, and then your solution should use dup2 to redirect the stdin of the child process that runs cat to come from the stdin of the process that calls execvp. Your solution should do something similar for stdout: use dup2 to redirect the stdout of the execvp child process to the stdout of the program.
Edit: There was a bit of hand-waving done in the above explanation, and you caught me in an extremely generous mood, so such a program structure might look like this:
Edit 2: I first tried writing this example program with cat instead of echo, but then I realized that you'd need to somehow send an EOF signal to the cat process from within the cat process, and sending a '\0' is ineffective.
int pipefd[2];
int result = pipe(pipefd);
if (result < 0) {
// pipe error
perror("pipe failure");
exit(1);
}
// Redirect the program's stdout and stdin to go to and from the pipe, respectively.
// This means that "echo"'s output will go to the pipe, and when "echo" finishes and we return execution to the parent process, we'll be able to read the information that "echo" just output from that pipe
// This is necessary in order to restore stdin and stdout to what they were prior to running this program
int savedStdin = dup(0);
int savedStdout = dup(1);
// Redirect stdin to come from the pipe
if ( dup2(pipefd[0], 0) < 0 ) {
perror("dup2 error");
exit(1);
}
// Close the read end of the pipe because the original descriptor was dupliechoed
close(pipefd[0]);
// Redirect stdout to go to the pipe
if ( dup2(pipefd[1], 1) < 0 ) {
perror("dup2 error");
exit(1);
}
// Close the write end of the pipe because the original descriptor was dupliechoed
close(pipefd[1]);
if ( fork() == 0 ) {
// Child process, will call "echo" and die
execlp("echo", "echo", "Hello_world!", NULL);
// The program should never ever get to this point, ever
// but if it does, we need to handle it
exit(1);
} else {
// Parent process, we need to wait for "echo" to terminate
wait(NULL);
// At this point stdout and stdin are still coming to/from the pipe, so if we do something like cin >> s, that will read from the pipe
// First, let's restore stdout to what it was before we redirected it, so that we can print the output of "echo" to the terminal
if (dup2(savedStdout, 1) < 0 ) {
perror("dup2 error");
exit(1);
}
close(savedStdout);
string s;
// Now we're going to read from stdin (the pipe) and print to stdout (the terminal, if you're running this from the command-line)
while (cin >> s) printf("%s\n", s.c_str() );
// We've read everything from "echo", let's fix stdin now
if (dup2(savedStdin, 0) < 0 ) {
perror("dup2 error");
exit(1);
}
close(savedStdin);
}
A pipe connects the stdout of one process to the stdin of another: https://superuser.com/a/277327
Here is a simple program to take input from stdin and print it:
int main( ) {
char str[100];
gets( str );
puts( str );
return 0;
}
I can use a unix pipe to pass the input from another process:
echo "hi" | ./a.out
My question is, what is the difference between the simple code above and using the pipe() system call? Does the system call essentially do the same job without writing to the terminal? More on Pipes: https://tldp.org/LDP/lpg/node11.html
The pipe() system call allows you to get file descriptors (one for reading and one for writing) for a channel (a pipe) that allows to stream bytes through multiple processes. This is an example where a parent process creates a pipe and its child writes to it so the parent can read from it:
int main() {
int fd[2];
pipe(fd);
int pid = fork();
if (pid == 0) { // Child:
close(fd[0]); // Close reading descriptor as it's not needed
write(fd[1], "Hello", 5);
} else { // Parent:
char buf[5];
close(fd[1]); // Close writing descriptor as it's not needed
read(fd[0], buf, 5); // Read the data sent by the child through the pipe
write(1, buf, 5); // print the data that's been read to stdout
}
}
When a shell encounters the pipe (|) operator, it does use the pipe() system call, but also does additional things, in order to redirect the left operand's stdout and the right operand's stdin to the pipe. Here's a simplified example of what the shell would do for the command echo "hi" | ./a.out (keep in mind that when duplicating a file descriptor it gets duplicated to the first index available in the open files structure of the process):
int main() {
int fd[2];
pipe(fd);
int pid_echo = fork();
if (pid_echo == 0) {
// Close reading descriptor as it's not needed
close(fd[0]);
// Close standard output
close(1);
// Replace standard output with the pipe by duplicating its writing descriptor
dup(fd[1]);
// Execute echo;
// now when echo prints to stdout it will actually print to the pipe
// because now file descriptor 1 belongs to the pipe
execlp("echo", "echo", "hi", (char*)NULL);
exit(-1);
}
int pid_aout = fork();
if (pid_aout == 0) {
// Close standard input
close(0);
// Replace standard input with the pipe by duplicating its reading descriptor
dup(fd[0]);
// Execute a.out;
// Now when a.out reads from stdin it will actually read from the pipe
// because now file descriptor 0 belongs to the pipe
execl("./a.out", "./a.out", (char*)NULL);
exit(-1);
}
}
A pipe is an inter-process communication mechanism that leverages I/O redirection. However, pipes are not involved in all I/O redirection.
Since child processes may inherit file descriptors from their parent process, a parent process may change what files the child's standard streams point to, unbeknownst to the child process. This is I/O redirection.
I'm trying to implement the following simple UNIX command:
cat -n < file.txt
where file.txt contains simply an integer "5".
Im fine with output redirection, but this input redirection has me stumped. This is my attempt at emulating the above command:
int f_des[2];
char *three[]={"cat", "-n", NULL};
// Open a pipe and report error if it fails
if (pipe(f_des)==-1){
perror("Pipe");
exit(1);
}
int filed=open("file.txt", O_WRONLY | O_CREAT, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
//fork child
if(fork()==0){
dup2(f_des[1], filed);
close(f_des[0]);
}
//fork child
if(fork()==0){
dup2(f_des[0], fileno(stdin));
close(f_des[1]);
execvp(three[0], three);
}
I get the following error:
cat: -: Input/output error
My thinking was that I send filed(the fd for the file) through the pipe, the other end of the pipe would gather the file's contents from the pipe as standard input, then I would execute "cat -n" with the file's contents sitting in standard input.
You don't indicate the context. If all you are wanting to do is implement cat -n < file, you can dispense with the pipe and fork entirely.
This should suffice:
filed = open("file.txt", O_RDONLY);
dup2(filed, 0); // make file.txt be stdin.
close(filed);
execvp(three[0], three);
If you are implementing this within another program and need to resume after the cat call, fork is necessary but you only need to call it once. You don't need the pipe.
So you would do:
int ret;
if ((ret = fork()) == 0) {
// in child
// open file, dup2, execvp...
}
// in parent
wait(&ret); // wait for child to exit
// do other stuff...
fork clones a copy of the process. It looks like the one you had before except for the PID and the return value from fork.
Checking the return value of fork() tells you whether that process is the child or the parent.
If the return value is zero, you are in the child. Do what you like in the if(ret == 0) {} section. In your case, you do execvp which eventually exits and takes the child with it.
If the return value is not zero, you are in the parent. You will skip over the if(ret == 0) {} section. You should wait on the child to exit before proceeding.
I'm trying to implement unix piping in c (i.e. execute ls | wc). I have found a related solution to my problem (C Unix Pipes Example) however, I am not sure why a specific portion of the solved code snippet works.
Here's the code:
/* Run WC. */
int filedes[2];
pipe(filedes);
/* Run LS. */
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0) {
/* Set stdout to the input side of the pipe, and run 'ls'. */
dup2(filedes[1], 1);
char *argv[] = {"ls", NULL};
execv("/bin/ls", argv);
} else {
/* Close the input side of the pipe, to prevent it staying open. */
close(filedes[1]);
}
/* Run WC. */
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0) {
dup2(filedes[0], 0);
char *argv[] = {"wc", NULL};
execv("/usr/bin/wc", argv);
}
In the child process that executes the wc command, though it attaches stndin to a file descriptor, it seems that we are not explicitly reading the output produced by ls in the first child process. Thus, to me it seems that ls is run independently and wc is running independently as we not explicitly using the output of ls when executing wc. How then does this code work (i.e. it executes ls | wc)?
The code shown just about works (it cuts a number of corners, but it works) because the forked children ensure that the the file descriptor that the executed process will write to (in the case of ls) and read from (in the case of wc) is the appropriate end of the pipe. You don't have to do any more; standard input is file descriptor 0, so wc with no (filename) arguments reads from standard input. ls always writes to standard output, file descriptor 1, unless it is writing an error message.
There are three processes in the code snippet; the parent process and two children, one from each fork().
The parent process should be closing both its ends of the pipe too; it only closes one.
In general, after you do a dup() or dup2() call on a pipe file descriptor, you should close both ends of the pipe. You get away with it here because ls generates data and terminates; you wouldn't in all circumstances.
The comment:
/* Set stdout to the input side of the pipe, and run 'ls'. */
is inaccurate; you're setting stdout to the output side of the pipe, not the input side.
You should have an error exit after the execv() calls; if they fail, they return, and the process can wreak havoc (for example, if the ls fails, you end up with two copies of wc running.
An SSCCE
Note the careful closing of both ends of the pipe in each of the processes. The parent process has no use for the pipe once it has launched both children. I left the code which closes filedes[1] early in place (but removed it from an explicit else block since the following code was also only executed if the else was executed). I might well have kept pairs of closes() in each of the three code paths where files need to be closed.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(void)
{
int filedes[2];
int corpse;
int status;
pipe(filedes);
/* Run LS. */
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
/* Set stdout to the output side of the pipe, and run 'ls'. */
dup2(filedes[1], 1);
close(filedes[1]);
close(filedes[0]);
char *argv[] = {"ls", NULL};
execv("/bin/ls", argv);
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to execute /bin/ls\n");
exit(1);
}
/* Close the input side of the pipe, to prevent it staying open. */
close(filedes[1]);
/* Run WC. */
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
/* Set stdin to the input side of the pipe, and run 'wc'. */
dup2(filedes[0], 0);
close(filedes[0]);
char *argv[] = {"wc", NULL};
execv("/usr/bin/wc", argv);
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to execute /usr/bin/wc\n");
exit(1);
}
close(filedes[0]);
while ((corpse = waitpid(-1, &status, 0)) > 0)
printf("PID %d died 0x%.4X\n", corpse, status);
return(0);
}
Example output:
$ ./pipes-14312939
32 32 389
PID 75954 died 0x0000
PID 75955 died 0x0000
$
I am working on an assignment for my Operating System class (Posix & C), building a mini-shell, and I don't know how to solve the following problem:
My mini-shell has to accept two commands, for example ls | grep a. For that I create a pipe of size two and a child. The child closes all that it has to close and opens all that it has to open (standard/pipe's in & out). It then executes "ls," using execvp. I am sure this works well. After that, the parent shuts and opens inputs and outputs (I am sure I do it well), and then executes grep a.
Now, the problem is that the process grep a never finishes. Same for tail -1, e.g.. Yet it does work for head -1. I think that happens because grep and tail, which are executed by the parent, wait for more input, even though the child has finished its operation. ls | grep a produces the right output, displayed on the console (The pipe's output is set as default output), but, as I've said, grep a does not finish.
So, my question is: how can I inform the parent that the pipe has finished writing, so it can finish the execution of grep a for example?
Thank you.
Here's the code:
[fd is the pipe, it is initialized previously in the code. If you can see any incongruous thing, please let me know; I've cleaned the code a bit, and this is only the problematic part, as you can see.]
int fd[2];
pipe(fd);
if ((pid = fork()) != -1){
if(pid == 0){ /*Child executing */
close(fd[0]);
close(1);
dup(fd[1]);
close(fd[1]);
execvp(argvv[0][0], argvv[0]); /* Here's stored the first instruction */
} else{ /* Parent executing */
wait(&status);
close(fd[1]);
close(0);
dup(fd[0]);
close(fd[0]);
execvp(argvv[1][0], argvv[1]); /* Here's stored the second instruction */
}
}
If the grep continues to run after the ls has exited, that indicates that you have not closed all the pipes that you need to close.
In particular, the write end of the pipe whose read end is attached to the grep process is still open in another process. You will need to show your code to know more.
The code you have pasted works correctly (when expanded to a full program, as per the below). Both subprocesses exit just fine.
This means that you've eliminated the code that has the problem when you created your cut-down version here - perhaps you have another fork() between the pipe() call and this fork()?
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
int main()
{
pid_t pid;
char *argvv[2][3] = { { "ls", 0, 0}, { "grep", "a", 0 } };
int status;
int fd[2];
pipe(fd);
if ((pid = fork()) != -1) {
if(pid == 0){ /*Child executing */
close(fd[0]);
close(1);
dup(fd[1]);
close(fd[1]);
execvp(argvv[0][0], argvv[0]); /* Here's stored the first instruction */
} else{ /* Parent executing */
wait(&status);
close(fd[1]);
close(0);
dup(fd[0]);
close(fd[0]);
execvp(argvv[1][0], argvv[1]); /* Here's stored the second instruction */
}
}
return 0;
}