I am working on JamVM, a popular small Java VM, and I would like to stop it (suspend all the threads), execute a function within the VM (a C function) and then restart all the threads.
I tried to handle a signal (Ctrl-C), execute my function, but this didn't work, because every signal the VM receives, it transmits it to the running java program...
So do you have a way to stop a VM, and then restart it? (with or without signals, it doesn't matter)
Related
I understand with the help of Signals, we can pass interrupts to the executing C programs, and direct them to behave according to the Handlers assigned. When ctrl+c is pressed, SIGINT is executed.
Currently I am running a setup, where in I have 2 systems. Both have servers(DiscoveryServers) capable of multicast extension(mDNS). I have made use of Signals like SIGHUP and SIGKILL.
I am trying to understand what SIGKILL and SIGHUP actually does here.
So in one of the systems, I have an extra server which registers to the local discovery server. This server is advertised throughout the network with the help of mDNS.
Now, through SIGHUP, i can see that the terminal close of the server is detected amd the corresponding handler is executed.
But when I shut the system down, both the server and the Discovery server of that system, should go off. But that is detected inconsistently( not always) through SIGHUP. I tried with SIGKILL and still the response is the same. It is very unclear as to why it is happening?
Is it because the mDNS is using UDP and the UDP is unreliable?
Eg: Consider A and B as two systemss. Both A and B have discoveryservers running (capable of mDNS: meaning they can advertise the server records throughout the network) which contains the list of servers running on their system respectively. An extra server (server E) running on A, registers to discovery server of A. Now the registered server records are also advertised. Because of mDNS, the discovery server in B also updates its cache with all the advertiesments from system A. B can be seen as a client, runs a particular API, to get the list of servers running on the netowrk. All of this works fine.
If i close the terminal of the extra server on purpose, SIGHUP handler works smoothly. I can see from logs of both the discovery servers that the extra server has been removed.
Now if i shutdown the system A unexpectedly, the terminals running the server applications should close. That can be achieved with SIGHUP handler. What i observe from the log of system B is that, sometimes there are clean removal of the servers, sometimes partial.
There is no clarity as to why it is happening.
I'm looking to develop a "secure" application and as a security mitigation, I'd like to be able to discover if a debugger (GDB, LLDB...) is in use on the currently running application; aborting if detected.
How can I detect monitoring of a statically-linked C application?
Walk the /proc tree
...
Just a crazy idea - load BPF program (assuming your binary has a capability to do it) to intercept ptrace syscall from process parent, and check if pid of process being traced match your process' pid, then you can either fail the syscall, preventing the debug, and send and event to userspace to stop your process.
Although it won't work for attached process, so you'd need to intercept ptrace from all processes, I'm not sure BPF allows it, don't remember.
Another crazy idea - tracer expects SIGTRAPs from tracee on each breakpoint/step, so you can catch this signal from your process, again using BPF, and do something about it. But again it is based on the assumption that tracer doesn't know about it.
You can't. Software can not detect if it runs in a perfect emulation or in the real world. And a emulator can be stopped, the software can be analyzed, variables can be changed, basically everything can be done what can be done in a debugger.
Lets say you want to detect if the parent process is a debugger. So you make a system call to get the parent PID? The debugger can intercept the system call and return any PID which does not have to be the real PID. You want to intercept every SIGTRAP so the debugger can't use it anymore? Well the debugger can just stop in this case and send the SIGTRAP also to your process.
You want to measure the time when you send SIGTRAP to know if the the process stops for a short time by the debugger for sending SIGTRAP so you know when there is a debugger? The debugger can replace your calls to get the time and return a fake time. Lets say you run on a Processor that has a instruction that returns the time, so no function call is needed to get the time. Now you can know that the time you are getting is real? No, the debugger can replace this instruction with a SIGTRAP instruction and return any time he wants or in case such a instruction does not exist, run the Software in a emulator that can be programmed in any way. Everything you can come up with to detect a debugger or emulator can be faked by the environment and you have 0 change to detect it.
The only way to stop debugging is by not giving the software to the customers but keep it in your hands. Make a cloud service and run the software on your server. In this case the customer can not debug your program since he does not run it and has no control over it. Except the customer can access the server or the data somehow, but that is a different story.
Let's say I get myself into a situation where I do not know how to recover. What would be the best way to self restart the process? What I'm looking for is something similar to closing itself and launching itself again. On some arduino's I can call NVIC_SystemReset however I'd like a function for windows, mac and linux.
I was thinking perhaps the only way is to execute a detached process and let myself shut down? With shellexecute on windows and execl on linux?
As mentioned by #Lundin, this is for processor not micro-controller.
This answer might not be correct in your case.
1) Create a proxy process to delegate to main process.
2) This proxy process will redirect to main process.
3) If your main process fails/return due to any reason then restart the main process. Otherwise if it normal exit of main program then end the proxy process.
I have an system running embedded linux and it is critical that it runs continuously. Basically it is a process for communicating to sensors and relaying that data to database and web client.
If a crash occurs, how do I restart the application automatically?
Also, there are several threads doing polling(eg sockets & uart communications). How do I ensure none of the threads get hung up or exit unexpectedly? Is there an easy to use watchdog that is threading friendly?
You can seamlessly restart your process as it dies with fork and waitpid as described in this answer. It does not cost any significant resources, since the OS will share the memory pages.
Which leaves only the problem of detecting a hung process. You can use any of the solutions pointed out by Michael Aaron Safyan for this, but a yet easier solution would be to use the alarm syscall repeatedly, having the signal terminate the process (use sigaction accordingly). As long as you keep calling alarm (i.e. as long as your program is running) it will keep running. Once you don't, the signal will fire.
That way, no extra programs needed, and only portable POSIX stuff used.
The gist of it is:
You need to detect if the program is still running and not hung.
You need to (re)start the program if the program is not running or is hung.
There are a number of different ways to do #1, but two that come to mind are:
Listening on a UNIX domain socket, to handle status requests. An external application can then inquire as to whether the application is still ok. If it gets no response within some timeout period, then it can be assumed that the application being queried has deadlocked or is dead.
Periodically touching a file with a preselected path. An external application can look a the timestamp for the file, and if it is stale, then it can assume that the appliation is dead or deadlocked.
With respect to #2, killing the previous PID and using fork+exec to launch a new process is typical. You might also consider making your application that runs "continuously", into an application that runs once, but then use "cron" or some other application to continuously rerun that single-run application.
Unfortunately, watchdog timers and getting out of deadlock are non-trivial issues. I don't know of any generic way to do it, and the few that I've seen are pretty ugly and not 100% bug-free. However, tsan can help detect potential deadlock scenarios and other threading issues with static analysis.
You could create a CRON job to check if the process is running with start-stop-daemon from time to time.
use this script for running your application
#!/bin/bash
while ! /path/to/program #This will wait for the program to exit successfully.
do
echo “restarting” # Else it will restart.
done
you can also put this script on your /etc/init.d/ in other to start as daemon
While implementing an applicative server and its client-side libraries in C++, I am having trouble finding a clean and reliable way to stop client processes on server shutdown on Windows.
Assuming the server and its clients run under the same user, the requirements are:
the solution should work in the following cases:
clients may each feature either a console or a gui.
user may be unprivileged.
clients may be or become unresponsive (infinite loop, deadlock).
clients may or may not be children of the server (direct or indirect).
unless prevented by a client-side defect, clients shall be allowed the opportunity to exit cleanly (free their ressources, sync some data to disk...) and some reasonable time to do so.
all client return codes shall be made available (if possible) to the server during the shutdown procedure.
server shall wait until all clients are gone.
As of this edit, the majority of the answers below advocate the use of a shared memory (or another IPC mechanism) between the server and its clients to convey shutdown orders and client status. These solutions would work, but require that clients successfully initialize the library.
What I did not say, is that the server is also used to start the clients and in some cases other programs/scripts which don't use the client library at all. A solution that did not rely on a graceful communication between server and clients would be nicer (if possible).
Some time ago, I stumbled upon a C snippet (in the MSDN I believe) that did the following:
start a thread via CreateRemoteThread in the process to shutdown.
had that thread directly call ExitProcess.
Unfortunately now that I'm looking for it, I'm unable to find it and the search results seem to imply that this trick does not work anymore on Vista. Any expert input on this ?
If you use thread, a simple solution is to use a named system event, the thread sleeps on the event waiting for it to be signaled, the control application can signal the event when it wants the client applications to quit.
For the UI application it (the thread) can post a message to the main window, WM_ CLOSE or QUIT I forget which, in the console application it can issue a CTRL-C or if the main console code loops it can check some exit condition set by the thread.
Either way rather than finding the client applications an telling them to quit, use the OS to signal they should quit. The sleeping thread will use virtually no CPU footprint provided it uses WaitForSingleObject to sleep on.
You want some sort of IPC between clients and servers. If all clients were children, I think pipes would have been easiest; since they're not, I guess a server-operated shared-memory segment can be used to register clients, issue the shutdown command, and collect return codes posted there by clients successfully shutting down.
In this shared-memory area, clients put their process IDs, so that the server can forcefully kill any unresponsive clients (modulo server privileges), using TerminateProcess().
If you are willing to go the IPC route, make the normal communication between client and server bi-directional to let the server ask the clients to shut down. Or, failing that, have the clients poll. Or as the last resort, the clients should be instructed to exit when the make a request to server. You can let the library user register an exit callback, but the best way I know of is to simply call "exit" in the client library when the client is told to shut down. If the client gets stuck in shutdown code, the server needs to be able to work around it by ignoring that client's data structures and connection.
Use PostMessage or a named event.
Re: PostMessage -- applications other than GUIs, as well as threads other than the GUI thread, can have message loops and it's very useful for stuff like this. (In fact COM uses message loops under the hood.) I've done it before with ATL but am a little rusty with that.
If you want to be robust to malicious attacks from "bad" processes, include a private key shared by client/server as one of the parameters in the message.
The named event approach is probably simpler; use CreateEvent with a name that is a secret shared by the client/server, and have the appropriate app check the status of the event (e.g. WaitForSingleObject with a timeout of 0) within its main loop to determine whether to shut down.
That's a very general question, and there are some inconsistencies.
While it is a not 100% rule, most console applications run to completion, whereas GUI applications run until the user terminates them (And services run until stopped via the SCM). Hence, it's easier to request a GUI to close. You send them the equivalent of Alt-F4. But for a console program, you have to send them the equivalent of Ctrl-C and hope they handle it. In both cases, you simply wait. If the process sticks around, you then shoot it down (TerminateProcess) and pray that the damage is limited. But your HDD can fill up with temporary files.
GUI application in general do not have exit codes - where would they go? And a console process that is forcefully terminated by definition does not exit, so it has no exit code. So, in a server shutdown scenario, don't expect exit codes.
If you've got a debugger attached, you generally can't shutdown the process from another application. That would make it impossible for debuggers to debug exit code!