The code below is from the book Advanced programming in unix environment, W. Richard Stevens
And about this code book says;
"If the signal is sent to the process while it is blocked, the signal delivery will be deferred until the signal is unblocked. To the application, this can look as if the signal occurs between the unblocking and the pause (depending on how the kernel implements signals). If this happens, or if the signal does occur between the unblocking and the pause, we have a problem. Any occurrence of the signal in this window of time is lost in the sense that we might not see the signal again, in which case the pause will block indefinitely. This is another problem with the earlier unreliable signals."
And it recommands to use sigsuspend() before resetting signal mask instead of pause() since it resets the signal mask and put the process to sleep in a single atomic operation. But I don't want my process wait until signal came after stepping out of critical region. So is this problem valid for my case too? If so what should i use not to lose signal while reseting signal mask with sigprocmask()?
sigset_t newmask, oldmask;
sigemptyset(&newmask);
sigaddset(&newmask, SIGINT);
/* block SIGINT and save current signal mask */
if (sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &newmask, &oldmask) < 0)
err_sys("SIG_BLOCK error");
/* critical region of code */
/* reset signal mask, which unblocks SIGINT */
if (sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &oldmask, NULL) < 0)
err_sys("SIG_SETMASK error");
/* window is open */
pause(); /* wait for signal to occur */
/* continue processing */
sigsuspend is used in order to avoid a course between sigprocmask and pause. If you don't need to halt your thread until a signal is received, there is nothing sigsuspend can do for you. You don't give enough information to know if there are other sources of trouble in your context or not.
Related
This is the sample code for APUE：
sigset_t newmask, oldmask;
sigemptyset(&newmask);
sigaddset(&newmask, SIGINT);
/* block SIGINT and save current signal mask */
if (sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &newmask, &oldmask) < 0)
err_sys("SIG_BLOCK error");
/* critical region of code */
/* restore signal mask, which unblocks SIGINT */
if (sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &oldmask, NULL) < 0)
err_sys("SIG_SETMASK error");
/* window is open */
pause(); /* wait for signal to occur */
/* continue processing */
The book says that：To the application, this can look as if the signal occurs
between the unblocking and the pause (depending on how the kernel implements
signals). If this happens, or if the signal does occur between the unblocking and the pause, we have a problem. Any occurrence of the signal in this window of time is lost, in the sense that we might not see the signal again, in which case the pause will block indefinitely. This is another problem with the earlier unreliable signals.
I do not understand why SIGINT is lost between the unblocking and the pause?
I'm writing my own echo server using sockets and syscalls. I am using epoll to work with many different clients at the same time and all the operations done with clients are nonblocking. When the server is on and doing nothing, it is in epoll_wait. Now I want to add the possibility to shut the server down using signals. For example, I start the server in bash terminal, then I press ctrl-c and the server somehow handles SIGINT. My plan is to use signalfd. I create new signalfd and add it to epoll instance with the following code:
sigset_t mask;
sigemptyset(&mask);
sigaddset(&mask, SIGTERM);
sigaddset(&mask, SIGINT);
signal_fd = signalfd(-1, &mask, 0);
epoll_event event;
event.data.fd = signal_fd;
event.events = EPOLLIN;
epoll_ctl(fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, signal_fd, &event);
Then I expect, that when epoll is waiting and I press ctrl-c, event on epoll happens, it wakes up and then I handle the signal with the following code:
if (events[i].data.fd == signal_fd)
{
//do something
exit(0);
}
Though in reality the server just stops without handling the signal. What am I doing wrong, what is the correct way to solve my problem? And if I'm not understanding signals correctly, what is the place, where the one should use signalfd?
epoll_wait returns -1 and errno == EINTR when it is interrupted by a signal. In this case you need to read from signal_fd.
Set the signal handler for your signals to SIG_IGN, otherwise signals may terminate your application.
See man signal 7:
The following interfaces are never restarted after being interrupted by
a signal handler, regardless of the use of SA_RESTART; they always fail
with the error EINTR when interrupted by a signal handler:
File descriptor multiplexing interfaces: epoll_wait(2),
epoll_pwait(2), poll(2), ppoll(2), select(2), and pselect(2).
Though in reality the server just stops without handling the signal. What am I doing wrong, what is the correct way to solve my problem? And if I'm not understanding signals correctly, what is the place, where one should use signalfd?
Signal handlers are per process. You left the signal handler at the default, which is to terminate the processes.
So you need to add something like this,
struct sigaction action;
std::memset(&action, 0, sizeof(struct sigaction));
action.sa_handler = your_handler;
sigaction(signum, &action, NULL);
for each signum that you want your application to receive interrupts for. Also handle the return value of sigaction. My experience is that if you use SIG_IGN as handler than you still interrupt a system call like epoll_pwait from the "outside", but it won't work when you try to wake up the thread from the program itself by sending the signal directly to that thread using pthread_kill.
Next you need to mask all signals from every thread, so that by default no thread will receive it (otherwise a random thread is woken up to handle the signal). The easiest way to do that is by doing it in main before creating any thread.
For example,
sigset_t all_signals;
sigemptyset(&all_signals);
sigaddset(&all_signals, signum); // Repeat for each signum that you use.
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &all_signals, NULL);
And then unblock the signals per thread when you want that thread to receive the signal.
If you use signalfd, then you do not want to unblock them - that system call unblocks the signals itself, just pass the appropriate mask (set bits for signalfd (it uses the passed mask to unblock). See also the man page of signalfd).
epoll_pwait works differently; like pselect you unblock the signal that you are interested in. You set a handler for that signal (see above) that sets a flag. Then just before calling epoll_pwait you block the signal, then test the flag and handle it, and then call epoll_pwait without first unblocking the signal. After epoll_wait returns you can unblock the signal again so that your handler can be called again.
You have to block all the signals you want to handle with your signal-FD before you create that signal-FD. Otherwise, those signals still interrupt blocked system calls such as epoll_wait() - as you observed.
See also the signalfd(2) man page:
Normally, the set of signals to be received via the file descriptor
should be blocked using sigprocmask(2), to prevent the signals being
handled according to their default dispositions.
Thus, you have to change your example like this:
sigset_t mask;
sigemptyset(&mask);
sigaddset(&mask, SIGTERM);
sigaddset(&mask, SIGINT);
int r = sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &mask, 0);
if (r == -1) {
// XXX handle errors
}
signal_fd = signalfd(-1, &mask, 0);
if (signal_fd == -1) {
// XXX handle errors
}
epoll_event event;
event.data.fd = signal_fd;
event.events = EPOLLIN;
r = epoll_ctl(fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, signal_fd, &event);
if (r == -1) {
// XXX handle errors
}
I want to simulate a game server that should continuously send and receive signals with its parent. The scenario is as follows:
Parent sends signal to game.
Game catches the signal and sends a signal to the parent.
Parent catches the signal and sends again a signal to game.
and so on...
The problem is that the stops receiving or sending after the first lap:
static int game_s;
void game()
{
printf("game\n");
signal(SIGUSR1,game);
sleep(1);
kill(getppid(),SIGUSR1);
pause();
}
void parent()
{
printf("parent\n");
signal(SIGUSR1,parent);
sleep(1);
kill(game_s,SIGUSR1);
pause();
}
void main()
{
game_s = fork();
if(game_s>0)
{
signal(SIGUSR1,parent);
sleep(1);
kill(game_s,SIGUSR1);
pause();
}
else
{
signal(SIGUSR1,game);
pause();
}
}
The output is the following:
game
parent
Why it stopped here? Shouldn't the game server catch parent's signal and print "game" again...
By default the reception of a specific signal is blocked from the moment a process received this specific signal until the related signal handler had been left.
From man 3 signal:
void (*signal(int sig, void (*func)(int)))(int);
[...]
When a signal occurs, and func points to a function, it is implementation-defined whether the equivalent of a:
signal(sig, SIG_DFL);
is executed or the implementation prevents some implementation-defined set of signals (at least including sig) from occurring until the current signal handling has completed.
To change this behaviour establish the signal handling via sigaction() instead of signal() (which one should do any ways for portability reasons).
sigaction() takes a struct sigaction. The member sa_flags of the latter should have SA_NODEFER set.
From Linux' man 2 sigaction:
SA_NODEFER
Do not prevent the signal from being received from within its own signal handler. This flag is meaningful only when establishing a signal handler.
POSIX words this differently:
SA_NODEFER
If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the
thread's signal mask on entry to the signal handler
unless it is included in sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall
always be added to the thread's signal mask on entry to
the signal handler.
Be aware that each signal handler gets it's own stack allocated each time it gets invoked, so sooner or later this recursive ping-pong ends up in an out-of-memory condition.
Use message queues, or shared memory to do this. As stated above, this will eventually run out of memory and it will crash.
I have a parent process that manages a child (fork, execve). I created a handler in the parent to catch SIGCHLD signals from the child in order to call waitpid() and take appropriate action such as restarting the child.
I understood from the manual page for sigaction() that, while inside a signal handler, further signals of the same type would be blocked by default. I definitely wish for this behaviour so I decided to test it.
I put a sleep (my own implementation using clock_nanosleep() in a loop which resumes when interrupted) at the end of the signal handler and sent a SIGINT to the child. This duly made it quit and sent SIGCHLD to the parent. I logged the fact and started my sleep for 10 seconds. Now, I sent another SIGINT to the new child (sighandler restarted it first time) and was surprised to see another log and sleep happen.
How can this be? When I attached using a debugger to the parent it clearly showed two different threads interrupted to call my signal handler, both now sat in sleep. If that keeps up I will run out of threads!
I understand putting long sleeps into a signal handler is a daft thing to do but it does illustrate the point; I expected to see the second signal marked as pending in /proc/[PID]/status but instead it's delivered.
Here's the relevant bits of my code:
Set up the SIGCHLD handler:
typedef struct SigActType {
struct sigaction act;
int retval;
void (*func)(int);
}SigActType;
static SigActType sigActList[64];
public void setChildHandler(void (*func)(int)) {
SigActType *sat = &sigActList[SIGCHLD];
sat->act.sa_sigaction = sigchldHandler;
sigemptyset(&sat->act.sa_mask);
sigaddset (&sat->act.sa_mask, SIGTERM);
sigaddset (&sat->act.sa_mask, SIGINT);
sigaddset (&sat->act.sa_mask, SIGCHLD);
sat->act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
sat->retval = 0;
sat->func = func;
sigaction(SIGCHLD, &sat->act, NULL);
}
static void sigchldHandler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *thing) {
SigActType *sat = &sigActList[SIGCHLD];
if (sat->func) {
sat->func(si->si_pid);
}
}
and using this:
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
setChildHandler(manageChildSignals);
...
}
static void manageChildSignals(int d) {
if ((pid = waitpid(-1, &stat, WAIT_MYPGRP)) > 0) {
... restart child if appropriate
}
printf("start of pause...\n");
mySleep(10);
printf("end of pause...\n");
}
Stdout clearly shows:
(when I type kill -2 [PID]
start of pause
(when the new child is started and I type kill -2 [NEWPID]
start of pause
...10 seconds slide past...
end of pause
end of pause
I am puzzled as to why this happens. As you can see I even added SIGCHLD to the block mask for sigaction() to try to encourage it to do the right thing.
Any pointers most welcome!
signals of the same type would be blocked by default.
Yes, but only for the thread sigaction() is called from.
From man sigaction (bold emphasis by me):
sa_mask specifies a mask of signals which should be blocked (i.e.,
added to the signal mask of the thread in which the signal handler is
invoked) during execution of the signal handler.
As signal dispostion is per process any other thread not blocking the signal in question might receive it, that is get interupted and process it.
If this behaviour is not what you want you should perhaps modify the design of the way your program handles signals in such a way that per default all signals are blocked for each thread, and only one specifiy thread has signal reception unblocked.
Update:
Signals masks are inherited from the parent thread by the child thread.
If signal handling shall be done by one specific thread only, have the main thread block all signals prior to creating any other thread. Then create one specfic thread to do the signal handling, and have this thread unblock the signals to be handled. This concept also allows models like one thread per signal.
In a mutlithreaded environment use pthread_sigmask() to mask signals on a per thread base.
Please note that the behaviour of sigprocmask() in a multithreaded process is unspecified, use pthread_sigmask() then.
I was wondering if it is possible to be interrupted by a signal when my program is handling other signal at the same time, I tried to simulate it with:
#include<signal.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<unistd.h>
#include<sys/wait.h>
#include<string.h>
void sig_output()
{
sigset_t set;
sigprocmask(0,NULL,&set);
printf("currently blocking:");
if (sigismember(&set,SIGUSR1))
printf("\nSIGUSR1");
if(sigismember(&set,SIGUSR2))
printf("\nSIGUSR2");
printf("\n");
return ;
}
void sig_handler(int sig)
{
raise(SIGUSR1);
printf("start\n");
if (sig==SIGUSR1)
printf("SIGUSR1\n");
else if (sig==SIGUSR2)
printf("SIGUSR2\n");
printf("end\n");
return ;
}
void other_sig_handler(int sig)
{
printf("start - other\n");
if (sig==SIGUSR1)
printf("SIGUSR1\n");
else if (sig==SIGUSR2)
printf("SIGUSR2\n");
printf("end - other\n");
return ;
}
int main()
{
sig_output();
struct sigaction a;
a.sa_handler=sig_handler;
a.sa_flags=0;
sigset_t set,old;
//blocking SIGUSR1,SIGUSR2
sigemptyset(&set);
sigaddset(&set,SIGUSR1);
sigaddset(&set,SIGUSR2);
printf("blocking SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2\n");
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,&set,&old);
sig_output();
//adding handles for SIGUSR1,SIGUSR2
sigemptyset(&(a.sa_mask));
sigaction(SIGUSR1,&a,NULL);
a.sa_handler=other_sig_handler;
sigaction(SIGUSR2,&a,NULL);
printf("poczatek wysylania \n");
raise(SIGUSR1);
raise(SIGUSR2);
raise(SIGUSR1);
printf("using sigsuspend\n");
sigsuspend(&old);
printf("end of program\n");
return 0;
}
and everytime I run this program I get
currently blocking:
blocking SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2
currently blocking:
SIGUSR1
SIGUSR2
raising
using sigsuspend
start - other
SIGUSR2
end - other
start
SIGUSR1
end
end of program
is it always like that?
Quoting the sigaction(2) manpage:
Signal routines normally execute with the signal that caused their
invocation blocked, but other signals may yet occur. A global signal mask
defines the set of signals currently blocked from delivery to a process.
The signal mask for a process is initialized from that of its parent
(normally empty). It may be changed with a sigprocmask(2) call, or when
a signal is delivered to the process.
You can control whether the signal is automatically blocked in its signal handler with the SA_NODEFER flag.
The order in which these particular pending signals are delivered is not, as far as I know, defined. However, signals are (mostly; there's an exception for SIGCLD, which is traditionally done by "cheating") "non-queueing", except for real-time signals. The non-queuing aspect means that if you have signal X blocked, and then raise it twice (as you do above for SIGUSR1), you only get it delivered once.
The only ordering documented on at least one system (MacOS) is:
If multiple signals are ready to be delivered at the same time, any signals that
could be caused by traps are delivered first.
(These are things like SIGSEGV and SIGBUS.) In general, you can control the order of delivery by use of the signal blocking masks: unblock any particular signal(s) at some point and those are the ones that can be delivered at that point.
If you do not set SA_NODEFER, the blocking mask at the entry to your handler will always block whatever signal your handler is handling, so that you won't have to worry about recursion.
The special case for SIGCLD comes from System V, which originally implemented this by resetting the handler to SIG_DFL on each SIGCLD delivery. (In fact, SysV did this with all signals, effectively implementing SA_RESETHAND whether you wanted it or not.) The default action was to discard the signal, as if the handler were SIG_IGN. This of course created race conditions when multiple child processes finished before the handler could do its thing. Instead of a block/unblock model, though, the SysV folks put in a hack: at the end of your SIGCLD handler, you would call signal(SIGCLD, handler); to fix up the handler. At that point, if there were any exited children that had not yet been wait-ed for, SysV would immediately generate a new SIGCLD, and your handler would be entered recursively. This made it look as though the signals were queued, without actually queueing them.
For more on Linux signals, see (eg) http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man7/signal.7.html.