I am extremely new to socket programming and I am implementaing a file server that receives request like open(), read(), write(), close() from clients. The file server will process the requests and send the clients the return value of each system call.
I don't know what type of socket I need to define(i.e. stream socket, datagram socket etc). and what command will send the request from the client, how will I receive the return value from the server, how will I receive it at the server end and send the return value to my client.
Will be gratefull to get some pointers.
Thanks
An edit: Is something simple like this work for starting Server not able to properly read/open a filename sent by client in C
It depends in part upon your file server design.
If you're going for a stateless server, then datagram or stream would be fine. Datagram is relatively nice because your servers and clients don't need to handle partial requests -- the entire contents of the request are contained in the datagram.
If you're going for a stateful server, then stream might be nicer -- you can automatically release locks and de-allocate resources 'owned' by a client when you receive a TCP RST packet. (Client gone, throw away their state.) You could of course build a stateful server with datagram services, but it doesn't seem like a good fit.
But on the open Internet, typically you have just UDP and TCP -- I have no idea if RDP, a reliable datagram transport, is routed on given ISPs or not. And being forced between unreliable datagrams and reliable streams, I'd recommend reliable streams almost every time. Will your use your protocol on reliable LANs only? Or on lossy wireless or public Internet links?
I would use a streaming socket, but others have done differently, for example the Network File System (NFS).
To communicate between a client and the server you need a protocol. The one that OpenSSH uses for their scp and sftp programs is nice to implement. Have a look at it. http://openssh.org/txt/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-02.txt
Related
I need to write a proxy server in C language on Linux (Ubuntu 20.04). The purpose of this proxy server is as follows. There're illogical governmental barriers in accessing the free internet. Some are:
Name resolution: I ping telegram.org and many other sites which the government doesn't want me to access. I ask 8.8.8.8 to resolve the name, but they response of behalf of the server that the IP may be resolved to 10.10.34.35!
Let's concentrate on this one, because when this is solved many other problems will be solved too. For this, I need to setup such a configuration:
A server outside of my country is required. I prepared it. It's a VPS. Let's call it RS (Remote Server).
A local proxy server is required. Let's call it PS. PS runs on the local machine (client) and knows RS's IP. I need it to gather all requests going to be sent through the only NIC available on client, process them, scramble them, and send them to RS in a way to be hidden from the government.
The server-side program should be running on RS on a specific port to get the packet, unscramble it, and send it to the internet on behalf of the client. After receiving the response from the internet, it should send it back to the client via the PS.
PS will deliver the response to the client application which originates the request. Of course this happens after it will unscramble and will find the original response from the internet.
This is the design and some parts is remained gloomy for me. Since I'm not an expert in network programming context, I'm going to ask my questions in the parts I'm getting into trouble or are not clear for me.
Now, I'm in part 2. See whether I'm right. There're two types of sockets, a RAW socket and a stream socket. A RAW socket is opened this way:
socket(AF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(ETH_P_ALL));
And a stream socket is opened this way:
socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
For RAW sockets, we use sockaddr_ll and for stream sockets we use sockaddr_in. May I use stream sockets between client applications and PS? I think not, because I need the whole RAW packet. I should know the protocol and maybe some other info of the packet, because the whole packet should be retrieved transparently in RS. For example, I should know whether it has been a ping packet (ICMP) or a web request (TCP). For this, I need to have packet header in PS. So I can't use a stream socket, because it doesn't contain the packet header. But until now, I've used RAW sockets for interfaces and have not written a proxy server to receive RAW packets. Is it possible? In another words, I've the following questions to go to next step:
Can a RAW socket be bound to localhost:port instead of an interface so that it may receive all low-level packets containing packet headers (RAW packets)?
I may define a proxy server for browser. But can I put the whole system behind the proxy server so that packets of other apps like PING may route automatically via it?
Do I really need RAW sockets in PS? Can't I change the design to suffice the data I got from the packets payload?
Maybe I'm wrong in some of the concepts and will appreciate your guidance.
Thank you
Can a RAW socket be bound to localhost:port instead of an interface so that it may receive all low-level packets containing packet headers (RAW packets)?
No, it doesn't make sense. Raw packets don't have port numbers so how would it know which socket to go to?
It looks like you are trying to write a VPN. You can do this on Linux by creating a fake network interface called a "tun interface". You create a tun interface, and whenever Linux tries to send a packet through the interface, instead of going to a network cable, it goes to your program! Then you can do whatever you like with the packet. Of course, it works both ways - you can send packets from your program back to Linux through the tun interface, and Linux will act like they just arrived on a network cable.
Then, you can set up your routing table so that all traffic goes to the tun interface, except for traffic to the VPN server ("RS"), which goes to your real ethernet/wifi interface. Otherwise you'd have an endless loop where your VPN program PS tried to send packets to RS but they just went back to PS.
I'm programming an application for transferring a file between two host with an UDP socket.
But it seems that some data arrives corrupted at the client.
My question is: is it possible that if the server is faster than the client, the client could read corrupted data from the socket?
I use sendto() in the server and read() in the client (I use the connect() before beginning transferring the file in the client),
and if yes: how can I stop the server from sending new data until the client has read all the previous data?
is it possible that if the server is faster than the client, the
client could read corrupted data from the socket?
No it is not possible - every datagram that you see is error checked by the IP layer and will be as it was sent.
how can I stop the server from sending new data until the client has
read all the previous data?
Typically you send a small packet, the receiver sends an acknowledgement, then you send the next. Problem with UDP however is packets can get dropped without telling you event duplicated moreover you can flood the network as there is no congestion control..
So why re-invent the wheel, use TCP for sending files which takes care of reliability and congestion control - everyone has been using that for decades, e.g. this web page is delivered to you using HTTP which uses TCP.
There's already a question How exactly does a remote program like team viewer work which gives a basic description, but I'm interested in how the comms works once the client has registered with the server. If the client is behind a NAT then it won't have its own IP address so how can the server (or another client) send a message to it? Or does the client just keep polling the server to see if its got any requests?
Are there any open source equivalents of LogMeIn or TeamViewer?
The simplest and most reliable way (although not always the most efficient) is to have each client make an outgoing TCP connection to a well-known server somewhere and keep that connection open. As long as the TCP connection is open, data can pass over that TCP connection in either direction at any time. It appears that both LogMeIn and TeamViewer use this method, at least as a fall-back. The main drawbacks for this technique are that all data has to pass through a TeamViewer/LogMeIn company server (which can become a bottleneck), and that TCP doesn't handle dropped packets very well -- it will stall and wait for the dropped packets to be resent, rather than giving up on them and sending newer data instead.
The other technique that they can sometimes use (in order to get better performance) is UDP hole-punching. That technique relies on the fact that many firewalls will accept incoming UDP packets from remote hosts that the firewalled-host has recently sent an outgoing UDP packet to. Given that, the TeamViewer/LogMeIn company's server can tell both clients to send an outgoing packet to the IP address of the other client's firewall, and after that (hopefully) each firewall will accept UDP packets from the other client's Internet-facing IP address. This doesn't always work, though, since different firewalls work in different ways and may not include the aforementioned UDP-allowing logic.
I'm writing a server in C ++ for both Windows and Unix systems.
A key feature of this server is that it must be able to receive and send network packets at any time.
Specifically, the server must be able to send data to the client not only in response to their messages, but also be able to send packets to them asynch in push.
I'm having difficulty in implementing a solution that uses the select() function in the scenario described above.
The solution I have currently implemented does not convince me at all and I think it can be implemented with better patterns/solutions.
I currently have a dedicated thread (selector) that performs the select by listening on events in the reading for the server socket (to accept new connections) and for the sockets connected to the server.
This is the main select() loop:
if((sel_res_ = select(nfds_+1, &read_FDs_, NULL, &excep_FDs_, &sel_timeout)) > 0){
if(FD_ISSET(serv_socket, &read_FDs_)){
//we have to handle a newly connection.
...
if(sel_res_ > 1){
//in addition to the newly connection, there is also some other message incoming on client sockets.
...
}
}else{
//we have to handle incoming messages on client sockets
...
}
}
This solution works well for receiving the data and to respond to client requests in synchronous form.
However, the server must also be able to send asynchronous data, and send when necessary, packets in push.
To do this I currently use separate threads that perform directly the send() on the client sockets.
This solution does not convince me, and I would like to centralize the packets receiving and sending on the selector thread.
The main difficulty is that the select() by its nature is blocking and I have no control until a client does not send any packet or the timeout is triggered.
The solution to set a timeout very low does not convince me; I see it as an easy solution that is actually doing active wait, and not only, however, the worst case I would pay the price of the timeout before sending the push packet.
I thought a more 'elegant' solution; I think, will work well, but only for a Unix/Linux platform.
I thought to use an anonymous pipe and insert into the select() read_FDs_ the anonymous pipe read descriptor.
In this way, when a thread wants to send a data in push, it writes something on this pipe, interrupting the select() and returning control to the selector that can then predispose to send the data to the client, without significant loss of time.
I think that this solution, unfortunately, cannot be implemented on Windows because the select() function on that system works only with fds that are actually sockets.
So the question is: Is there some well known solution that can be used to address this kind of scenario (both Linux and Windows)?
You can create a self connected UDP socket, this works equally well on Windows and Linux.
Basically, you create a UDP socket, bind() it to INADDR_LOOPBACK and port 0, and connect() it to itself (with the address taken from getsockname()).
At this point, you can send yourself a single byte message (or something more specific) to wake yourself up.
I have a small doubt in socket programming. i am able to send my data from client to server and my server processes the data. The o/p of the data processed, I want to send back to my client. So can we "write" the data back to the client using the same socket. I mean a server listens on a port before accepting connection and receiving data, so similarly, do i need to make my client listen to some other port (bind it some other socket) and make my server connect to that socket and transfer the data back. Any kind of example or explanation or references would be appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance.
Check out Beej's Network Programming Guide first of all.
The basic screenplay of a server/client connection goes like this:
Server listen()s on a fixed port, with a given socket.
Client connect()s to a the server port; client obtains a socket.
Server accept()s the connection, and accept() returns a new socket for the connection.
(Server continues listening on the original port with the original socket.)
For the specific connection with the client, the server write()s to the new socket it obtained when accept()ing the incoming connection. A busy server will have many, many sockets, but it will only ever need to bind() to one port. All connections come in to that one port, but the OS's networking protocol stack separates the data and makes it available at the connection-specific socket.
You don't need a new socket.
A socket is a duplex connection you can send data in both directions and you can even close the socket from one direction (don't want to write anymore) but still send data from the other direction.
Your socket is bi-directional, so there is no need to create another socket. Unless you are using some sort of middleware, such as Pub/Sub, there is no need to create another socket to enable bi-directional communication.
Technically it is right, the socket is duplex and you can send the data to the same socket you read from:
SOCKET s = socket()
... //Connect
int size = receive(s,...);
//make response
send(s, ...);
But in practice it depends on what are you going to do. It is possible to hang out socket if you have the following situation:
Process 1 sends very big data (<100K) over the socket by one send
operation
Process 2 receives data from 1 by portions and sends small packets to 1 (~20b). It is not a
confirmations, but some external events.
The situation goes into hangout, where the sending buffer of the 2 is full and it stops sending confirmations to 1.
2 and 1 are hanging in their send operations making a deadlock.
In this case I'd recommend using two sockets. One for read, one for write.
(Late answer, so mainly for anyone else who comes here looking for help)
I recently put up an example client/server application that closely follows Beej's Guide to Network Programming (which was also recommended by Kerrek SB in his answer). If you're looking for a simple working example of client/server communication, maybe this will help:
https://github.com/countvajhula/dummyclientserver
In particular, no, your client does not need to set up a separate listening socket to receive data from the server -- after the server has accepted the connection from the client, the server can simply send data back to the client on the same socket.