I don't know why I'm having a hard time finding this, but I'm looking at some linux code where we're using select() waiting on a file descriptor to report it's ready. From the man page of select:
select() and pselect() allow a program to monitor multiple file descriptors,
waiting until one or more of the file descriptors become "ready" for some
class of I/O operation
So, that's great... I call select on some descriptor, give it some time out value and start to wait for the indication to go. How does the file descriptor (or owner of the descriptor) report that it's "ready" such that the select() statement returns?
It reports that it's ready by returning.
select waits for events that are typically outside your program's control. In essence, by calling select, your program says "I have nothing to do until ..., please suspend my process".
The condition you specify is a set of events, any of which will wake you up.
For example, if you are downloading something, your loop would have to wait on new data to arrive, a timeout to occur if the transfer is stuck, or the user to interrupt, which is precisely what select does.
When you have multiple downloads, data arriving on any of the connections triggers activity in your program (you need to write the data to disk), so you'd give a list of all download connections to select in the list of file descriptors to watch for "read".
When you upload data to somewhere at the same time, you again use select to see whether the connection currently accepts data. If the other side is on dialup, it will acknowledge data only slowly, so your local send buffer is always full, and any attempt to write more data would block until buffer space is available, or fail. By passing the file descriptor we are sending to to select as a "write" descriptor, we get notified as soon as buffer space is available for sending.
The general idea is that your program becomes event-driven, i.e. it reacts to external events from a common message loop rather than performing sequential operations. You tell the kernel "this is the set of events for which I want to do something", and the kernel gives you a set of events that have occured. It is fairly common for two events occuring simultaneously; for example, a TCP acknowledge was included in a data packet, this can make the same fd both readable (data is available) and writeable (acknowledged data has been removed from send buffer), so you should be prepared to handle all of the events before calling select again.
One of the finer points is that select basically gives you a promise that one invocation of read or write will not block, without making any guarantee about the call itself. For example, if one byte of buffer space is available, you can attempt to write 10 bytes, and the kernel will come back and say "I have written 1 byte", so you should be prepared to handle this case as well. A typical approach is to have a buffer "data to be written to this fd", and as long as it is non-empty, the fd is added to the write set, and the "writeable" event is handled by attempting to write all the data currently in the buffer. If the buffer is empty afterwards, fine, if not, just wait on "writeable" again.
The "exceptional" set is seldom used -- it is used for protocols that have out-of-band data where it is possible for the data transfer to block, while other data needs to go through. If your program cannot currently accept data from a "readable" file descriptor (for example, you are downloading, and the disk is full), you do not want to include the descriptor in the "readable" set, because you cannot handle the event and select would immediately return if invoked again. If the receiver includes the fd in the "exceptional" set, and the sender asks its IP stack to send a packet with "urgent" data, the receiver is then woken up, and can decide to discard the unhandled data and resynchronize with the sender. The telnet protocol uses this, for example, for Ctrl-C handling. Unless you are designing a protocol that requires such a feature, you can easily leave this out with no harm.
Obligatory code example:
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/select.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
static inline int max(int lhs, int rhs) {
if(lhs > rhs)
return lhs;
else
return rhs;
}
void copy(int from, int to) {
char buffer[10];
int readp = 0;
int writep = 0;
bool eof = false;
for(;;) {
fd_set readfds, writefds;
FD_ZERO(&readfds);
FD_ZERO(&writefds);
int ravail, wavail;
if(readp < writep) {
ravail = writep - readp - 1;
wavail = sizeof buffer - writep;
}
else {
ravail = sizeof buffer - readp;
wavail = readp - writep;
}
if(!eof && ravail)
FD_SET(from, &readfds);
if(wavail)
FD_SET(to, &writefds);
else if(eof)
break;
int rc = select(max(from,to)+1, &readfds, &writefds, NULL, NULL);
if(rc == -1)
break;
if(FD_ISSET(from, &readfds))
{
ssize_t nread = read(from, &buffer[readp], ravail);
if(nread < 1)
eof = true;
readp = readp + nread;
}
if(FD_ISSET(to, &writefds))
{
ssize_t nwritten = write(to, &buffer[writep], wavail);
if(nwritten < 1)
break;
writep = writep + nwritten;
}
if(readp == sizeof buffer && writep != 0)
readp = 0;
if(writep == sizeof buffer)
writep = 0;
}
}
We attempt to read if we have buffer space available and there was no end-of-file or error on the read side, and we attempt to write if we have data in the buffer; if end-of-file is reached and the buffer is empty, then we are done.
This code will behave clearly suboptimal (it's example code), but you should be able to see that it is acceptable for the kernel to do less than we asked for both on reads and writes, in which case we just go back and say "whenever you're ready", and that we never read or write without asking whether it will block.
From the same man page:
On exit, the sets are modified in place to indicate which file descriptors actually changed status.
So use FD_ISSET() on the sets passed to select to determine which FDs have become ready.
Related
I'm trying to understand the difference between select() and poll() better. For this I tried to implement a simple program that will open a file as write-only, add its file descriptor to the read set and than execute select in hopes that the function will block until the read permission is granted.
As this didnt work (and as far as I understood, this is intended behaviour) I tried to block access to the file using flock before the select() executen. Still, the program did not block its execution.
My sample code is as follows:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <poll.h>
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <sys/select.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("[+] Select minimal example\n");
int max_number_fds = FOPEN_MAX;
int select_return;
int cnt_pollfds;
struct pollfd pfds_array[max_number_fds];
struct pollfd *pfds = pfds_array;
fd_set fds;
int fd_file = open("./poll_text.txt", O_WRONLY);
struct timeval tv;
tv.tv_sec = 10;
tv.tv_usec = 0;
printf("\t[+] Textfile fd: %d\n", fd_file);
//create and set fds set
FD_ZERO(&fds);
FD_SET(fd_file, &fds);
printf("[+] Locking file descriptor!\n");
if(flock(fd_file,LOCK_EX) == -1)
{
int error_nr = errno;
printf("\t[+] Errno: %d\n", error_nr);
}
printf("[+] Executing select()\n");
select_return = select(fd_file+1, &fds, NULL, NULL, &tv);
if(select_return == -1){
int error_nr = errno;
printf("[+] Select Errno: %d\n", error_nr);
}
printf("[+] Select return: %d\n", select_return);
}
Can anybody see my error in this code? Also: I first tried to execute this code with two FDs added to the read list. When trying to lock them I had to use flock(fd_file,LOCK_SH) as I cannot exclusively lock two FDs with LOCK_EX. Is there a difference on how to lock two FDs of the same file (compared to only one fd)
I'm also not sure why select will not block when a file, that is added to the Read-set is opened as Write-Only. The program can never (without a permission change) read data from the fd, so in my understanding select should block the execution, right?
As a clarification: My "problem" I want to solve is that I have to check if I'm able to replace existing select() calls with poll() (existing in terms of: i will not re-write the select() call code, but will have access to the arguments of select.). To check this, I wanted to implement a test that will force select to block its execution, so I can later check if poll will act the same way (when given similar instructions, i.e. the same FDs to check).
So my "workflow" would be: write tests for different select behaviors (i.e. block and not block), write similar tests for poll (also block, not block) and check if/how poll can be forced do exactly what select is doing.
Thank you for any hints!
When select tells you that a file descriptor is ready for reading, this doesn't necessarily mean that you can read data. It only means that a read call will not block. A read call will also not block when it returns an EOF or error condition.
In your case I expect that read will immediately return -1 and set errno to EBADF (fd is not a valid file descriptor or is not open for reading) or maybe EINVAL (fd is attached to an object which is unsuitable for reading...)
Edit: Additional information as requested in a comment:
A file can be in a blocking state if a physical operation is needed that will take some time, e.g. if the read buffer is empty and (new) data has to be read from the disk, if the file is connected to a terminal and the user has not yet entered any (more) data or if the file is a socket or a pipe and a read would have to wait for (new) data to arrive...
The same applies for write: If the send buffer is full, a write will block. If the remaining space in the send buffer is smaller than your amount of data, it may write only the part that currently fits into the buffer.
If you set a file to non-blocking mode, a read or write will not block but tell you that it would block.
If you want to have a blocking situation for testing purposes, you need control over the process or hardware that provides or consumes the data. I suggest to use read from a terminal (stdin) when you don't enter any data or from a pipe where the writing process does not write any data. You can also fill the write buffer on a pipe when the reading process does not read from it.
I'm building a multi-client<->server messaging application over TCP.
I created a non blocking server using epoll to multiplex linux file descriptors.
When a fd receives data, I read() /or/ recv() into buf.
I know that I need to either specify a data length* at the start of the transmission, or use a delimiter** at the end of the transmission to segregate the messages.
*using a data length:
char *buffer_ptr = buffer;
do {
switch (recvd_bytes = recv(new_socket, buffer_ptr, rem_bytes, 0)) {
case -1: return SOCKET_ERR;
case 0: return CLOSE_SOCKET;
default: break;
}
buffer_ptr += recvd_bytes;
rem_bytes -= recvd_bytes;
} while (rem_bytes != 0);
**using a delimiter:
void get_all_buf(int sock, std::string & inStr)
{
int n = 1, total = 0, found = 0;
char c;
char temp[1024*1024];
// Keep reading up to a '\n'
while (!found) {
n = recv(sock, &temp[total], sizeof(temp) - total - 1, 0);
if (n == -1) {
/* Error, check 'errno' for more details */
break;
}
total += n;
temp[total] = '\0';
found = (strchr(temp, '\n') != 0);
}
inStr = temp;
}
My question: Is it OK to loop over recv() until one of those conditions is met? What if a client sends a bogus message length or no delimiter or there is packet loss? Wont I be stuck looping recv() in my program forever?
Is it OK to loop over recv() until one of those conditions is met?
Probably not, at least not for production-quality code. As you suggested, the problem with looping until you get the full message is that it leaves your thread at the mercy of the client -- if a client decides to only send part of the message and then wait for a long time (or even forever) without sending the last part, then your thread will be blocked (or looping) indefinitely and unable to serve any other purpose -- usually not what you want.
What if a client sends a bogus message length
Then you're in trouble (although if you've chosen a maximum-message-size you can detect obviously bogus message-lengths that are larger than that size, and defend yourself by e.g. forcibly closing the connection)
or there is packet loss?
If there is a reasonably small amount of packet loss, the TCP layer will automatically retransmit the data, so your program won't notice the difference (other than the message officially "arriving" a bit later than it otherwise would have). If there is really bad packet loss (e.g. someone pulled the Ethernet cable out of the wall for 5 minutes), then the rest of the message might be delayed for several minutes or more (until connectivity recovers, or the TCP layer gives up and closes the TCP connection), trapping your thread in the loop.
So what is the industrial-grade, evil-client-and-awful-network-proof solution to this dilemma, so that your server can remain responsive to other clients even when a particular client is not behaving itself?
The answer is this: don't depend on receiving the entire message all at once. Instead, you need to set up a simple state-machine for each client, such that you can recv() as many (or as few) bytes from that client's TCP socket as it cares to send to you at any particular time, and save those bytes to a local (per-client) buffer that is associated with that client, and then go back to your normal event loop even though you haven't received the entire message yet. Keep careful track of how many valid received-bytes-of-data you currently have on-hand from each client, and after each recv() call has returned, check to see if the associated per-client incoming-data-buffer contains an entire message yet, or not -- if it does, parse the message, act on it, then remove it from the buffer. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
This must be a stupid question because this should be a very common and simple problem, but I haven't been able to find an answer anywhere, so I'll bite the bullet and ask.
How on earth should I go about reading from the standard input when there is no way of determining the size of the data? Obviously if the data ends in some kind of terminator like a NUL or EOF then this is quite trivial, but my data does not. This is simple IPC: the two programs need to talk back and forth and ending the file streams with EOF would break everything.
I thought this should be fairly simple. Clearly programs talk to each other over pipes all the time without needing any arcane tricks, so I hope there is a simple answer that I'm too stupid to have thought of. Nothing I've tried has worked.
Something obvious like (ignoring necessary realloc's for brevity):
int size = 0, max = 8192;
unsigned char *buf = malloc(max);
while (fread((buf + size), 1, 1, stdin) == 1)
++size;
won't work since fread() blocks and waits for data, so this loop won't terminate. As far as I know nothing in stdio allows nonblocking input, so I didn't even try any such function. Something like this is the best I could come up with:
struct mydata {
unsigned char *data;
int slen; /* size of data */
int mlen; /* maximum allocated size */
};
...
struct mydata *buf = xmalloc(sizeof *buf);
buf->data = xmalloc((buf->mlen = 8192));
buf->slen = 0;
int nread = read(0, buf->data, 1);
if (nread == (-1))
err(1, "read error");
buf->slen += nread;
fcntl(0, F_SETFL, oflags | O_NONBLOCK);
do {
if (buf->slen >= (buf->mlen - 32))
buf->data = xrealloc(buf->data, (buf->mlen *= 2));
nread = read(0, (buf->data + buf->slen), 1);
if (nread > 0)
buf->slen += nread;
} while (nread == 1);
fcntl(0, F_SETFL, oflags);
where oflags is a global variable containing the original flags for stdin (cached at the start of the program, just in case). This dumb way of doing it works as long as all of the data is present immediately, but fails otherwise. Because this sets read() to be non-blocking, it just returns -1 if there is no data. The program communicating with mine generally sends responses whenever it feels like it, and not all at once, so if the data is at all large this exits too early and fails.
How on earth should I go about reading from the standard input when there is no way of determining the size of the data?
There always has to be a way to determinate the size. Otherwise, the program would require infinite memory, and thus impossible to run on a physical computer.
Think about it this way: even in the case of a never-ending stream of data, there must be some chunks or points where you have to process it. For instance, a live-streamed video has to decode a portion of it (e.g. a frame). Or a video game which processes messages one by one, even if the game has undetermined length.
This holds true regardless of the type of I/O you decide to use (blocking/non-blocking, synchronous/asynchronous...). For instance, if you want to use typical blocking synchronous I/O, what you have to do is process the data in a loop: each iteration, you read as much data as is available, and process as much as you can. Whatever you can not process (because you have not received enough yet), you keep for the next iteration. Then, the rest of the loop is the rest of the logic of the program.
In the end, regardless of what you do, you (or someone else, e.g. a library, the operating system, the hardware buffers...) have to buffer incoming data until it can be processed.
Basically, you have two choices -- synchronous or asynchronous -- and both have their advantages and disadvantages.
For synchronous, you need either delimeters or a length field embedded in the record (or fixed length records, but that is pretty inflexible). This works best for synchronous protocols like synchronous rpc or simplex client-server interactions where only one side talks at a time while the other side waits. For ASCII/text based protocols, it is common to use a control-character delimiter like NL/EOL or NUL or CTX to mark the end of messages. Binary protocols more commonly use an embedded length field -- the receiver first reads the length and then reads the full amount of (expected) data.
For asynchronous, you use non-blocking mode. It IS possible to use non-blocking mode with stdio streams, it just requires some care. out-of-data conditions show up to stdio like error conditions, so you need to use ferror and clearerr on the FILE * as appropriate.
It's possible for both to be used -- for example in client-server interactions, the clients may use synchronous (they send a request and wait for a reply) while the server uses asynchronous (to be be robust in the presence of misbehaving clients).
The read api on Linux or the ReadFile Api on windows will immediately return and not wait for the specified number of bytes to fill the buffer (when reading a pipe or socket). Read then reurns the number of bytes read.
This means, when reading from a pipe, you set a buffersize, read as much as returned and the process it. You then read the next bit. The only time you are blocked is if there is no data available at all.
This differs from fread which only returns once the desired number of bytes are returned or the stream determines doing so is impossible (like eof).
Hello I have a server program and a client program. The server program is working fine, as in I can telnet to the server and I can read and write in any order (like a chat room) without any issue. However I am now working on my client program and when I use 'select' and check if the socket descriptor is set to read or write, it always goes to write and then is blocked. As in messages do not get through until the client sends some data.
How can I fix this on my client end so I can read and write in any order?
while (quit != 1)
{
FD_ZERO(&read_fds);
FD_ZERO(&write_fds);
FD_SET(client_fd, &read_fds);
FD_SET(client_fd, &write_fds);
if (select(client_fd+1, &read_fds, &write_fds, NULL, NULL) == -1)
{
perror("Error on Select");
exit(2);
}
if (FD_ISSET(client_fd, &read_fds))
{
char newBuffer[100] = {'\0'};
int bytesRead = read(client_fd, &newBuffer, sizeof(newBuffer));
printf("%s",newBuffer);
}
if(FD_ISSET(client_fd, &write_fds))
{
quit = transmit(handle, buffer, client_fd);
}
}
Here is code to transmit function
int transmit(char* handle, char* buffer, int client_fd)
{
int n;
printf("%s", handle);
fgets(buffer, 500, stdin);
if (!strchr(buffer, '\n'))
{
while (fgetc(stdin) != '\n');
}
if (strcmp (buffer, "\\quit\n") == 0)
{
close(client_fd);
return 1;
}
n = write(client_fd, buffer, strlen(buffer));
if (n < 0)
{
error("ERROR writing to socket");
}
memset(buffer, 0, 501);
}
I think you are misinterpreting the use of the writefds parameer of select(): only set the bit when you want to write data to the socket. In other words, if there is no data, do not set the bit.
Setting the bit will check if there is room for writing, and if yes, the bit will remain on. Assuming you are not pumping megabytes of data, there will always be room, so right now you will always call transmit() which waits for input from the command line with fgets(), thus blocking the rest of the program. You have to monitor both the client socket and stdin to keep the program running.
So, check for READ action on stdin (use STDIN_FILENO to get the file descriptor for that), READ on client_fd always and just write() your data to the client_fd if the amount of data is small (if you need to write larger data chunks consider non-blocking sockets).
BTW, you forget to return a proper value at the end of transmit().
Sockets are almost always writable, except when the socket send buffer is full, which indicates that you are sending faster than the receiver is receiving.
So your transmit() function will be entered every time around the loop, so it will read some data from stdin, which blocks until you type something, so nothing happens.
You should only select on writability when a prior send() has returned EWOULDBLOCK/EAGAIN. Otherwise you should just send, when you have something to send.
I would throw this code away and use two or three threads in blocking mode.
select is used to check whether a socket has become ready to read or write. If it is blocking for read then that indicates no data to read. If it is blocking in write, then that indicates the TCP buffer is likely full and the remote end has to read some data so that the socket will allow more data to be written. Since the select blocks until one of the socket descriptions is ready, you also need to use timeout in select to avoid waiting for a long time.
In your specific case, if your remote/receiving end keep reading data from the socket then the select will not block for the write on the other end. Otherwise the tcp buffer will become full on the sender side and select will block. Answers posted also indicate the importance of handling EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK.
Sample flow:
while(bytesleft > 0)
then
nbytes = write data
if(nbytes > 0)
bytesleft -= nbytes;
else
if write returns with EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK
call poll or select to wait for the socket to be come ready
endif
endif
if poll or select times out
then handle the timeout error(e.g. the remote end did not send the
data within expected time interval)
endif
end while
The code also should include handle error conditions and read/write returning with (For example, write/read returning with 0). Also note read/recv returning 0 indicates the remote end closed the socket.
I am building a client/server model but using sockets, using named pipes, with mkfifo().
A client writes output into the name pipe, and I read the input in my server using:
while ((n = read(fd_in, &newChar, 1)) == 1) { /* ... */ }
I am reading one character at a time, until I encounter the two characters: <'CR'><'LF'>. I would like to make my code in such a way that if a client does not terminate with <'CR'><'LF'> after some time maybe, I can discard it and proceed to another client, otherwise the next client will have to wait, maybe infinitely.
Is there a way please to terminate the execution of read()? If it has not returned in 2 seconds, I could say interrupt read and discard the previously read characters, and start reading again please?
Thank you for your help,
Jary
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <poll.h>
do {
ssize_t ret;
struct pollfd ps = {.fd = fd_in, .events = POLLIN};
if (poll(&ps, 1, 2000) < 0)
break; /* kick client */
ret = read(in_fd, ...);
if (ret != 1)
break;
/* process read data */
} while (true);
This checks for whether there is data to be read; if there is not within 2000 msec, do whatever it is you want (e.g. disconnect).
Try passing the O_NONBLOCK flag when you open the read-end of the FIFO. That should change the behavior so that read returns right away even if the number of requested characters is not in the pipe.
To handle multiple clients simultaneously, you should set the file descriptors non-blocking with fcntl(), and then use select() or poll() to block until input appears on at least one of them.