I'm real noob in C. I'm trying to develop my own lock-server in C (just for practice). And I have a question... Let's imagine that we have server written in C, we have remote host connected to this server via socket. When connection being initiated - my server has created pointer in memory. Is it possible to remove this pointer when remote host has disconnected? How can I catch disconnect event?
Thank you
In a real world io scenario, you cannot truly detect the disconnection. Instead you must:
Receive a packet that indicates the other side intends to disconnect.
Attempt to transmit a package which will fail to be delivered due to changes in the connectivity during the "silent" period between communications.
This means that systems which "must" ensure connectivity typically send and receive periodic "dummy" messages to detect the loss of the connection sooner than it would be detected by "regular" traffic alone.
Depending on your application the overhead of the keep-alive messages may not be worth the effort.
The "connection" you have on your side of the network is really just a bunch of data structures which allow you to transmit and receive. The lower "IP" layer of "TCP/IP" is connectionless, that means you will not know if your simulated "connection" is available until you attempt to use it (or receive a package telling you explicitly that the other end will not process any more data).
The read(2) system call will return zero when the other end of the socket closes the connection.
Related
There are many threads regarding how to detect if a socket is connected or not using various methods like getpeername / getsockopt w/ SO_ERROR. https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/getpeername.2.html would be a good way for me to detect if a socket is connected or not. The problem is, it does not say anything about if the connection is in progress... So if i call connect, it is in progress, then i call getpeername, will it say it is an error (-1) even though the connection is still in progress?
If it does, I can implement a counter-like system that will eventually kill the socket if it is still in progress after x seconds.
Short Answer
I think that, if getpeername() returns ENOTCONN, that simply means that the tcp connection request has not yet succeeded. For it to not return ENOTCONN, I think the client end needs to have received the syn+ack from the server and sent its own ack, and the server end needs to have received the client's ack.
Thereafter all bets are off. The connection might subsequently be interrupted, but getpeername() has no way of knowing this has happened.
Long Answer
A lot of it depends on how fussy and short-term one wants to be about knowing if the connection is up.
Strictly Speaking...
Strictly speaking with maximum fussiness, one cannot know. In a packet switched network there is nothing in the network that knows (at any single point in time) for sure that there is a possible connection between peers. It's a "try it and see" thing.
This contrasts to a circuit switched network (e.g. a plain old telephone call), where there is a live circuit for exclusive use between peers (telephones); provided current is flowing, you know the circuit is complete even if the person at the other end of the phone call is silent.
Note that if the two computers were connected by a single Ethernet cable (no router, no switches, just a cable between NICs), that is effectively a fixed circuit (not even a circuit-switched network).
Relaxing a Little...
Focusing on what one can know about a connection in a packet switched network. As others have already said, the answer is that, really, one has to send and receive packets constantly to know if the network can still connect the two peers.
Such an exchange of packets occurs with a tcp socket connect() - the connecting peer sends a special packet to say "please can I connect to you", and the serving peer replies "yes", the client then says "thank you!" (syn->, <-syn+ack, ack->). But thereafter the packets flow between peers only if the applications send and receive data, or elects to close the connection (fin).
Calling something like getpeername() I think is somewhat misleading, depending on your requirements. It's fine, if you trust the network infrastructure and remote computer and its application to not break, and not crash.
It's possible for the connect() to succeed, then something breaks somewhere in the network (e.g. the peer's network connection is unplugged, or the peer crashes), and there is no knowledge at your end of the network that that has happened.
The first thing you can know about it is if you send some traffic and fail to get a response. The response is, initially, the tcp acks (which allows your network stack to clear out some of its buffers), and then possibly an actual message back from the peer application. If you keep sending data out into the void, the network will quite happily route packets as far as it can, but your tcp stack's buffers will fill up due to the lack of acks coming back from the peer. Eventually, your network socket blocks on a call to write(), because the local buffers are full.
Various Options...
If you're writing both applications (server and client), you can write the application to "ping pong" the connection periodically; just send a message that means nothing other than "tell me you heard this". Successful ping-ponging means that, at least within the last few seconds, the connection was OK.
Use a library like ZeroMQ. This library solves many issues with using network connections, and also includes (in modern version) socket heartbeats (i.e. a ping pong). It's neat, because ZeroMQ looks after the messy business of making, restoring and monitoring connections with a heartbeat, and can notify the application whenever the connection state changes. Again, you need to be writing both client and server applications, because ZeroMQ has it's own protocol on top of tcp that is not compatible with just a plain old socket. If you're interested in this approach, the words to look for in the API documentation is socket monitor and ZMQ_HEARTBEAT_IVL;
If, really, only one end needs to know the connection is still available, that can be accomplished by having the other end just sending out "pings". That might fit a situation where you're not writing the software at both ends. For example, a server application might be configured (rather than re-written) to stream out data regardless of whether the client wants it or not, and the client ignores most of it. However, the client knows that if it is receiving data it then also knows there is a connection. The server does not know (it's just blindly sending out data, up until its writes() eventually block), but may not need to know.
Ping ponging is also good in that it gives some indication of the performance of the network. If one end is expecting a pong within 5 seconds of sending a ping but doesn't get it, that indicates that all is not as expected (even if packets are eventually turning up).
This allows discrimination between networks that are usefully working, and networks that are delivering packets but too slowly to be useful. The latter is still technically "connected" and is probably represented as connected by other tests (e.g. calling getpeername()), but it may as well not be.
Limited Local Knowledge...
There is limited things one can do locally to a peer. A peer can know whether its connection to the network exists (e.g. the NIC reports a live connection), but that's about it.
My Opinion
Personally speaking, I default to ZeroMQ these days if at all possible. Even if it means a software re-write, that's not so bad as it seems. This is because one is generally replacing code such as connect() with zmq_connect(), and recv() with zmq_revc(), etc. There's often a lot of code removal too. ZeroMQ is message orientated, a tcp socket is stream orientated. Quite a lot of applications have to adapt tcp into a message orientation, and ZeroMQ replaces all the code that does that.
ZeroMQ is also well supported across numerous languages, either in bindings and / or re-implementations.
man connect
If the initiating socket is connection-mode, .... If the connection cannot be established immediately and O_NONBLOCK is not set for the file descriptor for the socket, connect() shall block for up to an unspecified timeout interval until the connection is established. If the timeout interval expires before the connection is established, connect() shall fail and the connection attempt shall be aborted.
If connect() is interrupted by a signal that is caught while blocked waiting to establish a connection, connect() shall fail and set errno to [EINTR], but the connection request shall not be aborted, and the connection shall be established asynchronously.
If the connection cannot be established immediately and O_NONBLOCK is set for the file descriptor for the socket, connect() shall fail and set errno to [EINPROGRESS], but the connection request shall not be aborted, and the connection shall be established asynchronously.
When the connection has been established asynchronously, select() and poll() shall indicate that the file descriptor for the socket is ready for writing.
If the socket is in blocking mode, connect will block while the connection is in progress. After connect returns, you'll know if a connection has been established (or not).
A signal could interrupt the (blocking/waiting) process, the connection routine will then switch to asynchronous mode.
If the socket is in non blocking mode (O_NONBLOCK) and the connection cannot be established immediately, connect will fail with the error EINPROGRESS and like above switching to asynchronous mode, that means, you'll have to use select or poll to figure out if the socket is ready for writing (indicates established connection).
when a client connects to my server side, after they connect if they switch to a VPN or something the server side still says the socket is alive and still tries to read from it i tried using another thread to check all my sockets constantly with read and close it if it returns -1 but it still doesn't do anything
It very depends on what type of protocol you use, but generalized question is : yes and no. You have to learn network protocol stack to know what you csn do in you situations, details of which you did not disclose.
Usual way to solve this problem is establish some policy or two way cpmmunocation. E.g. there was np data or "i'm alive" message send from client X for duration of time Y, we close connection. Or, send a regular "ping" message to client C and expect a response before period Y expires.
If we're talking TCP, and if the client's connection is properly closed, a message is sent to the server, so the server will know the connection is closed, so read/recv will return 0 bytes indicating EOF.
But you're asking about the times when the client becomes unable to communicate with the server. Detecting an absence of messages is necessarily done using a timeout.
You can have the server "ping" the client (send a message to which the client must respond) periodically.
You can have the client send a message periodically (a "heartbeat") when idle.
Either way, no message (of any kind) for X seconds indicates a broken connection.
If you enable the SO_KEEPALIVE socket option on each new TCP connection, the OS will automatically ping the remote side periodically to see if it still responds, and close the connection if it doesn't. The default timeout is several hours, but many OSes allow you to configure a lower timeout on a per-socket basis. Unfortunately, each one is different in how to do this. Linux, for example, uses the TCP_KEEPIDLE socket option. NetBSD (And probably other BSDs) uses TCP_KEEPALIVE. And so on.
I know there are hundreds of answers for this question, but I cannot get it done with respect to my situation. The scenario is like this, we have a server written in TCP/IP protocol, we have multiple clients connected to this server. The client here is a software module which before starting on a client machine, registers its presence in the server and loads the functionalities. But the problem is that this software module getting crashed and there by no socket.close() is called, this will make its footprints still present in the server even though its crashed. How to recognize this?
I am using select() method in the client to notify any info from client and server (vice-versa)
I cannot create a process separately for each client request in the server, neither can I create a parent-child mechanism in the client machine.
tcp-keepalive is not applicable as we need to tweak the registry in Windows? I need a x-platform compatible solution.
I have read that recv() to the connected socket in the server code will return some values from 'that' client such as 0 for socket closed? Can I use this to clear off the client socket registration in the server database? Will this work?
You didn't specify what method you are using to handle socket events in your server side code. Whatever method for polling your sockets you are using, recv() will return 0 or possibly -1/SOCKET_ERROR when a client crashes.
To detect inactive client connections most server applications send out some form of heartbeat or ping message periodically within the application layer protocol. When an ACK fails to be sent from the client the server application will then get notification the client disconnected via recv() returning 0 or SOCKET_ERROR with an error code of something like WSAENETRESET, WSAECONNABORTED, WSAETIMEDOUT, or WSAECONNRESET (see the various error codes here). Often after the server sends the heartbeat to a client TCP port that is no longer active an ICMP packet is sent in response that will alert your server that the port or host not active (recv() will immediately notify you of this event).
If you wish to turn the TCP keep alive timer on you can use the socket option SO_KEEPALIVE. The interval can also be set using SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS.
Edit: Keep in mind the various error codes and option SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS are Win32 specific. To handle these events for other operating systems you will need to use operating specific ways of retrieving error codes and setting the TCP keep alive interval if you choose to do so. My best suggestion to keeping your code cross platform compatible is to simply implement an application layer heartbeat message into your protocol or some other application layer specific timeout. Doing so will allow you to forget about managing TCP keep alives.
Update
I cannot comment on EJP's answer, but it's important to point out that by calling send() he is effectively recommending you implement a heartbeat/ping message in the application layer of your protocol. While checking the return value of send() is important, if you are polling/selecting read events you will be notified of the TCP connection being disconnected immediately upon calling recv() the moment the connection is deemed broken by the TCP stack. If you wait for your application timer to try to send some data using send() that could be many seconds (depending on the length of your interval timer) after recv() has already notified you that the connection is broken. In other words: pay attention to the recv() return values as well as your send() return values.
tcp-keepalive is not applicable as we need to tweak the registry in Windows?
TCP keepalive is an option if you can accept the default timeout of two hours.
I need a x-platform compatible solution.
TCP keepalive is cross-platform.
I have read that recv() to the connected socket in the server code will return some values from 'that' client such as 0 for socket closed?
it will return zero if the peer closes its socket, and on some platforms if the peer process merely exits without closing it.
Can I use this to clear off the client socket registration in the server database? Will this work?
Only if you can rely on the peer closing the socket properly.
It seems to me that what you should be doing is debugging the client code so it doesn't crash, and using TCP keepalive as a long-term backup.
You should also be aware that send() to a peer that has exited will sooner or later fail with an ECONNRESET error.
I am working on a client/server model based on Berkeley sockets and have almost finished but I'm stuck with a way to know that all of the data has been received whilst minimising the processing being executed on the client side.
The client I am working with has very little memory and battery and is to be deployed in remote conditions. This means that wherever possible I am trying to avoid processing (and therefore battery loss) on the client side. The following conditions on the client are outside of my control:
The client sends its data 1056 bytes at a time until it has ran out of data to send (I have no idea where the number 1056 came from but if you think that you know I would be very interested)
The client is very unpredictable in when it will send the data (it is attached to a wild animal and sends data determined by connection strength and battery life)
The client has an unknown amount of data to send at any given time
The data is transmitted though a GRSM enabled phone tag (Not sure that this is relevant but I'm assuming that extra information could only help)
(I am emulating the data I am expecting to receive from the client through localhost, if it seems to work I will ask the company where I am interning to invest in a static ip address to allow "real" tcp transfers, if it doesn't I won't. I don't think this is relevant but, again, I would rather provide too much information than too little)
At the moment I am using a while loop and incrementing the number of bytes received in order to "recv()" each of the 1056 byte sections. My problem is that the server needs to receive an unknown number of these. To me, the most obvious solutions are to send the number of sections to be received in an initial header from the client or to mark the last section being sent in some way. However, both of these approaches would require processing on the client side, I was wondering if there was a way to check whether the client has closed its socket from the server side? Or even whether something like closing the connection from the server after a pre-determined period of time without information from the client would be feasible? If these aren't possible then I would love to hear any other suggestions.
TLDR: What condition can I use here to minimise client-side processing?
while(!(/* Client has ran out of data to send*/)) {
receive1056Section();
}
Also, I know that it is bad practise to make a stackOverflow account and immediately ask a question, I didn't know what else to do, I'm sorry. Please don't hesitate to be mean if I've missed something very obvious.
Here is a suggestion for how to do the interaction:
The client:
Client connects to server via tcp.
Client sends chunks of data until all data has been sent. Flush the send buffer after each chunk.
When it is done the client issues a shutdown on the socket, sleeps for a couple of seconds and then closes the connection.
The client then sleeps until the next transmission. If the transmission was unsuccessful, the sleep time should be shorter to prevent unsent data to overflow the avaiable memory.
If the client is unable to connect for an extended period of time, you would have to discard data that doesn't fit in the memory.
I am assuming that sleep reduces power consumption.
The server:
The server programcan be single-threaded unless you need massive scalability. It is listening for incoming connections on the agreed port.
Whenever a client connects, a new socket is created.
Use select() to see which sockets has data (don't forget to include the listening socket!), and non-blocking reads to read from the sockets.
When you get the appropriate error (no more data to read and the other side has shutdown it's side of the connection), then you can close that socket.
This should work fine up to a couple of thousand simultaneous connections.
Example that handles many of the difficulties of implementing a server
I am developing a server application that needs to send a lot of data to the client. However, client can get disconnected at any time and send()/write() on socket will return an error in this case. I would like to check how much data has been actually delivered before a client get disconnected to be able to continue sending data from the place where it left off when the client reconnect.
Is it possible to check it using sockets API?
No, the sockets API does not give you this information. In fact, it is not possible in general to know this. Depending on the particular way in which the connection failed, the TCP stack on one side generally can't know how much data successfully made it to the other side. The only thing it can know is how much data was acknowledged, which is not the same thing. And considering that other things than TCP/IP might have failed (the local OS, the remote OS, the remote process, the remote application logic), the amount of data that has been acknowledged at the TCP level probably doesn't mean much anyway.
You need to use an end-to-end application protocol to have the remote end acknowledge the data it has received and successfully processed (and committed, if applicable).