I am writing a program that repeatedly does an operation till Ctrl+C is hit by the user in the Linux terminal. I am programming in C. Any ideas how i can implement this.
I have tested my program by using "for" loops with a condition but now i want to make it run as long as Ctrl+C is hit by the user and interrupted.
What I was thinking was of writing a do while loop like the following
do{
/Computation/
}
while(Ctrl+C is not hit)
But i dont know how to check for the Ctrl+C input from the user.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks
A signal trap will do the trick more cleanly than spudd86's suggestion. This example can be improved significantly, though.
#include <signal.h>
/* ... */
int execute;
void trap(int signal){ execute = 0; }
int main() {
/* ... */
signal(SIGINT, &trap);
execute = 1;
while(execute){
/* ... */
}
signal(SIGINT, SIG_DFL);
/* ... */
}
Ctrl+C will send your program a signal (SIGINT), if you DON'T set up a handler for it will cause your program to exit. So all you have to do is write
do {
//computation
} while(1);
and that will do what you want
EDIT: To do what you REALLY wanted without needing a signal handler, and avoiding doing things that might result in the compiler's optimizations breaking your code you can do this:
#include <signal.h>
/* ... */
int main() {
sigset_t set, oldset;
sigemptyset(&set);
/* ... */
sigaddset(&set, SIGINT);
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &set, &oldset);
do {
sigset_t pending_set;
/* ... */
sigpending(&pending_set);
} while(!sigismember(&pending_set, SIGINT));
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &oldset, NULL);
/* ... */
}
When Ctrl-C is hit, a signal is sent to the program. The default behavior is that the program is terminated.
This means that you can let your program run forever, looping endlessly. When the user hits Ctrl-C, the program will abort.
Related
I need some help on C program - it is a reverse shell (https://github.com/arturgontijo/remoteShell/blob/master/reverseShell.c) I made few changes, like put that all in a loop and some sleep pattern + put some argument to pass directly IP and PORT now that thing works very good it's stable (problem that cannot autocomplete stuff with TAB I don't really care) BUT what I really care is that this thing will break if on target machine I press CTRL+C the program just exits itself. Now I used this example to block CTRL+C calls:
/* Signal Handler for SIGINT */
void sigintHandler(int sig_num)
{
/* Reset handler to catch SIGINT next time.
Refer http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/program/signal */
signal(SIGINT, sigintHandler);
printf("\n Cannot be terminated using Ctrl+C \n");
fflush(stdout);
}
signal(SIGINT, sigintHandler);
I got this example online and put it on my loop as well, but still from client pressing ctrl+C breaks program. I wonder dup2() is responsible for that or something because on simple C program this actually worked fine.
You can use the sigetops family of functions to manipulate the signals sent into your application.
So for your example you could use:
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
sigset_t block_set;
sigemptyset(&block_set);
sigaddset(&block_set, SIGINT);
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &block_set, NULL);
while(1) {
sleep(1);
}
}
Running Example: https://repl.it/repls/RelevantImaginarySearchservice
You can unblock the signal at a later time by calling
sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &block_set, NULL);
The APUE book says that: If the signal occurs after the test of sig_int_flag but before the call to pause, the process could go to sleep forever.
I don't know why, can somebody tells me?
Thanks a lot.
int sig_int(); /* my signal handling function */
int sig_int_flag; /* set nonzero when signal occurs */
int main() {
signal(SIGINT, sig_int) /* establish handler */
.
.
.
while (sig_int_flag == 0)
pause(); /* go to sleep, waiting for signal */
}
int sig_int() {
signal(SIGINT, sig_int); /* reestablish handler for next time */
sig_int_flag = 1; /* set flag for main loop to examine */
}
If an interrupt signal is issued at the precise time you're describing:
the flag has been checked false: entering loop
signal resets itself, setting the flag to 1, but too late (test has been done)
since loop has already been entered, pause() is called and the program waits
That said, if CTRL+C/SIGINT is triggered another time, you can exit the loop, so it's not that critical, since that signal can be issued manually.
If you want to check that behaviour, I suggest you add a sleep statement:
while (sig_int_flag == 0)
{
printf("Hit CTRL+C in the next 10 seconds to trigger the bug\n");
sleep(10);
pause(); /* go to sleep, waiting for signal */
}
A workaround would be to remove the pause() statement and replace it by a polling loop:
while (sig_int_flag == 0)
{
sleep(1);
}
If a SIGINT occurs anywhere in the loop, including between the while and the sleep, then the worse thing that can happen is that the program waits 1 second before noticing that the flag is set, then it exits the loop, and the other, more plausible case it that the sleep call is interrupted, and the loop is exited immediately, so when the signal is set, there's little visible difference between that and a pause call if we only expect SIGINT.
The question's already answered. However, additional answer can consolidate the idea.
while (sig_int_flag == 0) {
<----- think it signal is caught here before pause btw while and pause()
pause(); /* go to sleep, waiting for signal */
}
Having caught, signal handler runs. After it finishes its task, it returns to a point at which the signal is caught, in main() in this case. So, the point is pause() and pause() is called. It waits again SIGINT to catch. To exemplify it, I add sleep(5) equivalently to catch prior pause().
So, we typically want the second situation. To achieve it always, the aforementioned code block has to be atomic. That's why sigsuspend() is better and should be used.
If you would like to experience the fallible case,
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
volatile sig_atomic_t sig_int_flag = 0; /* set nonzero when signal occurs */
char const * handlerMsg = "in handler\n";
int handlerMsgLen;
void sig_int(int s) {
signal(SIGINT, sig_int); /* reestablish handler for next time */
sig_int_flag = 1; /* set flag for main loop to examine */
write(2, handlerMsg, handlerMsgLen);
}
void mySleep() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
sleep(1);
fprintf(stderr, "%d ", i + 1);
}
}
int main() {
handlerMsgLen = strlen(handlerMsg);
signal(SIGINT, sig_int); /* establish handler */
while (sig_int_flag == 0) {
mySleep();
pause(); /* go to sleep, waiting for signal */
}
}
I got a problem in C when I try to pause an execution of a system() call.
A thread calls some application (e.g. some benchmark) repeatedly. Whenever it gets a signal SIGUSR1, the execution shall be paused and resumed on receiving SIGUSR2.
The source looks like this:
#include <signal.h>
#include <pthread.h>
void* run_app(sigset_t* signalsBetweenControllerandLoad)
{
/* assign handler */
signal(SIGUSR1, pausesignal_handler)
signal(SIGUSR2, pausesignal_handler)
pthread_sigmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, signalsBetweenControllerandLoad, NULL))
/* call application repeatedly */
while(1) {
system(SOMECOMMAND);
}
return(0);
}
static void pausesignal_handler(int signo)
{
int caughtSignal;
caughtSignal = 0;
/* when SIGUSR1 is received, wait until SIGUSR2 to continue execution */
if (signo == SIGUSR1) {
signal(signo, pausesignal_handler);
while (caughtSignal != SIGUSR2) {
sigwait (signalsBetweenControllerandLoad, &caughtSignal);
}
}
}
When I use some commands (e.g. a for loop as below that makes some computations) instead of system(SOMECOMMAND) this code works. But a program called by system() is not paused when the handler is active.
int i;
for(i=0;i<10;i++) {
sleep(1);
printf("Just a text");
}
Is there a way to pause the execution of the system() command by using thread signals? And is there even a way to stop the application called by system without needing to wait until the program is finished?
Thank you very much in advance!
system runs the command in a separate process, which doesn't even share address space with the invoking program, never mind signal handlers. The process which called system is sitting in a waitpid (or equivalent), so pausing and unpausing it will have little effect (except that if it is paused, it won't return to the loop to call system again.)
In short, there is no way to use signals sent to the parent process to pause an executable being run in a child, for example with the system() call or with fork()/exec().
If the executable itself implements the feature (which is unlikely, unless you wrote it yourself), you could deliver the signal to that process, not the one which called system.
Alternatively, you could send the SIGSTOP signal to the executable's process, which will unconditionally suspend execution. To do that, you'll need to know its pid, which suggests the use of the fork()/exec()/waitpid() sequence -- a little more work than system(), but cleaner, safer, and generally more efficient -- and you'll need to deal with a couple of issues:
A process cannot block or trap SIGSTOP, but it can trap SIGCONT so the sequence is not necessarily 100% transparent.
Particular care needs to be taken if the stopped process is the terminal's controlling process, since when it is resumed with SIGCONT it will need to reacquire the terminal. Furthermore, if the application has placed the terminal in a non-standard state -- for example, by using the readline or curses libraries which typically put the terminal into raw mode and disable echoing -- then the terminal may be rendered unusable.
Your process will receive a SIGCHLD signal as a result of the child processed being stopped. So you need to handle that correctly.
I want to present you my (shortened) resulting code after the help of #rici. Again, thank you very much.
Shortly described, the code forks a new process (calling fork) and executes there a command with exec. The parent then catches user defined signals SIGNAL_PAUSE and SIGNAL_RESUME and forwards signals to the forked child accordingly. Whenever the command finishes - catched by waitpid - the parent forks again and restarts the load.
This gets repeated until SIGNAL_STOP is sent where the child gets a SIGINT and gets cancelled.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define SIGNAL_PAUSE (SIGUSR1)
#define SIGNAL_RESUME (SIGUSR2)
#define SIGNAL_STOP (SIGSYS)
/* File scoped functions */
static void pausesignal_handler(int signo);
static void stopsignal_handler(int signo);
void send_signal_to_load_child(int signo);
/*Set file scope variables as handlers can only have signal-number as argument */
sigset_t* signalsBetweenControllerandLoad;
int restart_benchmark;
pid_t child_pid;
void* Load(char* load_arguments[MAX_NR_LOAD_ARGS], sigset_t* signalsToCatch) {
int load_ID;
pid_t p;
signalsBetweenControllerandLoad = signalsToCatch;
/* set signal handlers to catch signals from controller */
signal(SIGNAL_PAUSE, pausesignal_handler)
signal(SIGNAL_RESUME, pausesignal_handler)
signal(SIGNAL_STOP, stopsignal_handler)
pthread_sigmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, signalsBetweenControllerandLoad[load_ID], NULL)
/* Keep restarting benchmark until Stop signal was received */
restart_benchmark[load_ID] = 1;
/* execute benchmark, repeat until stop signal received */
while(restart_benchmark[load_ID])
{
if (child_pid == 0) {
if ((p = fork()) == 0) {
execv(load_arguments[0],load_arguments);
exit(0);
}
}
/* Parent process: Wait until child with benchmark finished and restart it */
if (p>0) {
child_pid = p; /* Make PID available for helper functions */
wait(child_pid); /* Wait until child finished */
child_pid = 0; /* Reset PID when benchmark finished */
}
}
return(0);
}
static void pausesignal_handler(int signo) {
static double elapsedTime;
int caughtSignal;
caughtSignal = 0;
if (signo == SIGNAL_PAUSE) {
send_signal_to_load_child(SIGSTOP);
printf("Load Paused, waiting for resume signal\n");
while (restart_benchmark == 1 && caughtSignal != SIGNAL_RESUME) {
sigwait (signalsBetweenControllerandLoad, &caughtSignal);
if (caughtSignal == SIGNAL_STOP) {
printf("Load caught stop signal when waiting for resume\n");
stopsignal_handler(caughtSignal);
} else if (caughtSignal != SIGNAL_RESUME) {
printf("Load caught signal %d which is not Resume (%d), keep waiting...\n",caughtSignal,SIGNAL_RESUME);
}
}
if (restart_benchmark[load_ID]) {
send_signal_to_load_child(SIGCONT, load_ID);
printf("Load resumed\n");
}
} else {
printf("Load caught unexpected signal %d.\n",signo);
}
/* reassign signals for compatibility reasons */
signal(SIGNAL_PAUSE, pausesignal_handler);
signal(SIGNAL_RESUME, pausesignal_handler);
}
static void stopsignal_handler(int signo) {
double elapsedTime;
signal(SIGNAL_STOP, stopsignal_handler);
if (signo == SIGNAL_STOP) {
restart_benchmark = 0;
send_signal_to_load_child(SIGINT);
printf("Load stopped.\n");
} else {
printf("catched unexpected stop-signal %d\n",signo);
}
}
void send_signal_to_load_child(int signo) {
int dest_pid;
dest_pid = child_pid;
printf("Error sending %d to Child: PID not set.\n",signo);
kill(dest_pid, signo);
}
I have a question about handling a signal.
Assume that if we recieve SIGINT signal, we should print "Recieved Signal". If within ten seconds the handler recieves another signal, it should print "Shutting Down" then exit with status 1.
I made my code like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void handler(int);
void secondhandler(int);
void alrmhandler(int);
void alrmhandler (int alrmsig)
{
alarm(0);
}
void secondhandler(int sig)
{
/* after recieving second signal prints shutting down and exit */
printf("Shutting Down\n");
exit(1);
}
void handler ( int sig )
{
/* recieve first SIGINT signal */
printf ("Recieved Signal\n");
/* handle for the alarm function */
signal(SIGALRM, alrmhandler);
/* start 10s alarm */
alarm(10);
/* catch second SIGINT signal within 10s*/
signal(SIGINT, secondhandler);
}
int main( void )
{
signal(SIGINT, handler);
printf( "Hello World!\n" );
for ( ;; )
{
/* infinite loop */
}
return 0;
}
I tried to compile it with dev c++, but it failed. Because SIGALRM undeclared(first use in this function).
Anyway, what I want to know is if this code is right. I actually kinda not sure with the alrmhandler(). should I ignore the SIGALRM?
If you are on a Windows platform, the only signals you will be able to send are : SIGABRT, SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGINT, SIGSEGV, or SIGTERM.
You write:
what I want to know is if this code is right.
Not entirely. printf() is not async-signal-safe, and so should not be called from within a signal handler unless you are very sure it is safe to do so. It is not safe to do so within the code you provide.
The alarm() technique is, generally, race-prone. Your ten second alarm might expire in the middle of your secondhandler() function. To guard against this, you might mask out signals to compensate with a more sophisticated signal manipulation function.
There are more elegant/flexible ways of implementing the timeout you desire, but that's perhaps a question better suited for codereview.stackexchange.com.
I have to code a multithreaded(say 2 threads) program where each of these threads do a different task. Also, these threads must keep running infinitely in the background once started. Here is what I have done. Can somebody please give me some feedback if the method is good and if you see some problems. Also, I would like to know how to shut the threads in a systematic way once I terminate the execution say with Ctrl+C.
The main function creates two threads and let them run infinitely as below.
Here is the skeleton:
void *func1();
void *func2();
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_t th1,th2;
pthread_create(&th1, NULL, func1, NULL);
pthread_create(&th2, NULL, func2, NULL);
fflush (stdout);
for(;;){
}
exit(0); //never reached
}
void *func1()
{
while(1){
//do something
}
}
void *func2()
{
while(1){
//do something
}
}
Thanks.
Edited code using inputs from the answers:
Am I exiting the threads properly?
#include <stdlib.h> /* exit() */
#include <stdio.h> /* standard in and output*/
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
sem_t end;
void *func1();
void *func2();
void ThreadTermHandler(int signo){
if (signo == SIGINT) {
printf("Ctrl+C detected !!! \n");
sem_post(&end);
}
}
void *func1()
{
int value;
for(;;){
sem_getvalue(&end, &value);
while(!value){
printf("in thread 1 \n");
}
}
return 0;
}
void *func2()
{
int value;
for(;;){
sem_getvalue(&end, &value);
while(!value){
printf("value = %d\n", value);
}
}
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
sem_init(&end, 0, 0);
pthread_t th1,th2;
int value = -2;
pthread_create(&th1, NULL, func1, NULL);
pthread_create(&th2, NULL, func2, NULL);
struct sigaction sa;
sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
sa.sa_sigaction = ThreadTermHandler;
// Establish a handler to catch CTRL+c and use it for exiting.
if (sigaction(SIGINT, &sa, NULL) == -1) {
perror("sigaction for Thread Termination failed");
exit( EXIT_FAILURE );
}
/* Wait for SIGINT. */
while (sem_wait(&end)!=0){}
//{
printf("Terminating Threads.. \n");
sem_post(&end);
sem_getvalue(&end, &value);
/* SIGINT received, cancel threads. */
pthread_cancel(th1);
pthread_cancel(th2);
/* Join threads. */
pthread_join(th1, NULL);
pthread_join(th2, NULL);
//}
exit(0);
}
There are mainly two approaches for thread termination.
Use a cancellation point. The thread will terminate when requested to cancel and it reaches a cancellation point, thus ending execution in a controlled fashion;
Use a signal. Have the threads install a signal handler which provides a mechanism for termination (setting a flag and reacting to EINTR).
Both approaches has caveats. Refer to Kill Thread in Pthread Library for more details.
In your case, it seems a good opportunity to use cancellation points. I will work with a commented example. The error-checking has been omitted for clarity.
#define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void sigint(int signo) {
(void)signo;
}
void *thread(void *argument) {
(void)argument;
for (;;) {
// Do something useful.
printf("Thread %u running.\n", *(unsigned int*)argument);
// sleep() is a cancellation point in this example.
sleep(1);
}
return NULL;
}
int main(void) {
// Block the SIGINT signal. The threads will inherit the signal mask.
// This will avoid them catching SIGINT instead of this thread.
sigset_t sigset, oldset;
sigemptyset(&sigset);
sigaddset(&sigset, SIGINT);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK, &sigset, &oldset);
// Spawn the two threads.
pthread_t thread1, thread2;
pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, thread, &(unsigned int){1});
pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, thread, &(unsigned int){2});
// Install the signal handler for SIGINT.
struct sigaction s;
s.sa_handler = sigint;
sigemptyset(&s.sa_mask);
s.sa_flags = 0;
sigaction(SIGINT, &s, NULL);
// Restore the old signal mask only for this thread.
pthread_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, &oldset, NULL);
// Wait for SIGINT to arrive.
pause();
// Cancel both threads.
pthread_cancel(thread1);
pthread_cancel(thread2);
// Join both threads.
pthread_join(thread1, NULL);
pthread_join(thread2, NULL);
// Done.
puts("Terminated.");
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
The need for blocking/unblocking signals is that if you send SIGINT to the process, any thread may be able to catch it. You do so before spawning the threads to avoid having them doing it by themselves and needing to synchronize with the parent. After the threads are created, you restore the mask and install a handler.
Cancellation points can be tricky if the threads allocates a lot of resources; in that case, you will have to use pthread_cleanup_push() and pthread_cleanup_pop(), which are a mess. But the approach is feasible and rather elegant if used properly.
The answer depends a lot on what you want to do when the user presses CtrlC.
If your worker threads are not modifying data that needs to be saved on exit, you don't need to do anything. The default action of SIGINT is to terminate the process, and that includes all threads that make up the process.
If your threads do need to perform cleanup, however, you've got some work to do. There are two separate issues you need to consider:
How you handle the signal and get the message to threads that they need to terminate.
How your threads receive and handle the request to terminate.
First of all, signal handlers are a pain. Unless you're very careful, you have to assume most library functions are not legal to call from a signal handler. Fortunately, sem_post is specified to be async-signal-safe, and can meet your requirements perfectly:
At the beginning of your program, initialize a semaphore with sem_init(&exit_sem, 0, 0);
Install a signal handler for SIGINT (and any other termination signals you want to handle, like SIGTERM) that performs sem_post(&exit_sem); and returns.
Replace the for(;;); in the main thread with while (sem_wait(&exit_sem)!=0).
After sem_wait succeeds, the main thread should inform all other threads that they should exit, then wait for them all to exit.
The above can also be accomplished without semaphores using signal masks and sigwaitinfo, but I prefer the semaphore approach because it doesn't require you to learn lots of complicated signal semantics.
Now, there are several ways you could handle informing the worker threads that it's time to quit. Some options I see:
Having them check sem_getvalue(&exit_sem) periodically and cleanup and exit if it returns a nonzero value. Note however that this will not work if the thread is blocked indefinitely, for example in a call to read or write.
Use pthread_cancel, and carefully place cancellation handlers (pthread_cleanup_push) all over the place.
Use pthread_cancel, but also use pthread_setcancelstate to disable cancellation during most of your code, and only re-enable it when you're going to perform blocking IO operations. This way you need only put the cleanup handlers just in the places where cancellation is enabled.
Learn advanced signal semantics, and setup an additional signal and interrupting signal handler which you send to all threads via pthread_kill which will cause blocking syscalls to return with an EINTR error. Then your threads can act on this and exit the normal C way via a string of failure returns all the way back up the the start function.
I would not recommend approach 4 for beginners, because it's hard to get right, but for advanced C programmers it may be the best because it allows you to use the existing C idiom of reporting exceptional conditions via return values rather than "exceptions".
Also note that with pthread_cancel, you will need to periodically call pthread_testcancel if you are not calling any other functions which are cancellation points. Otherwise the cancellation request will never be acted upon.
This is a bad idea:
for(;;){
}
because your main thread will execute unnecessary CPU instructions.
If you need to wait in the main thread, use pthread_join as answered in this question: Multiple threads in C program
What you have done works, I see no obvious problems with it (except that you are ignoring the return value of pthread_create). Unfortunately, stopping threads is more involved than you might think. The fact that you want to use signals is another complication. Here's what you could do.
In the "children" threads, use pthread_sigmask to block signals
In the main thread, use sigsuspend to wait for a signal
Once you receive the signal, cancel (pthread_cancel) the children threads
Your main thread could look something like this:
/* Wait for SIGINT. */
sigsuspend(&mask);
/* SIGINT received, cancel threads. */
pthread_cancel(th1);
pthread_cancel(th2);
/* Join threads. */
pthread_join(th1, NULL);
pthread_join(th2, NULL);
Obviously, you should read more about pthread_cancel and cancellation points. You could also install a cleanup handler. And of course, check every return value.
Looked at your updated coded and it still does not look right.
Signal handling must be done in only one thread. Signals targeted for a process (such as SIGINT) get delivered to any thread that does not have that signal blocked. In other words, there is no guarantee that given the three threads you have it is going to be the main thread that receives SIGINT. In multi-threaded programs the best practise is too block all signals before creating any threads, and once all threads have been created unblock the signals in the main thread only (normally it is the main thread that is in the best position to handle signals). See Signal Concepts and Signalling in a Multi-Threaded Process for more.
pthread_cancel is best avoided, there no reason to ever use it. To stop the threads you should somehow communicate to them that they should terminate and wait till they have terminated voluntarily. Normally, the threads will have some sort of event loop, so it should be relatively straightforward to send the other thread an event.
Wouldn't it be much easier to just call pthread_cancel and use pthread_cleanup_push in the thread function to potentially clean up the data that was dynamically allocated by the thread or do any termination tasks that was required before the thread stops.
So the idea would be:
write the code to handle signals
when you do ctrl+c ... the handling function is called
this function cancels the thread
each thread which was created set a thread cleanup function using pthread_cleanup_push
when the tread is cancelled the pthread_cleanup_push's function is called
join all threads before exiting
It seems like a simple and natural solution.
static void cleanup_handler(void *arg)
{
printf("Called clean-up handler\n");
}
static void *threadFunc(void *data)
{
ThreadData *td = (ThreadData*)(data);
pthread_cleanup_push(cleanup_handler, (void*)something);
while (1) {
pthread_testcancel(); /* A cancellation point */
...
}
pthread_cleanup_pop(cleanup_pop_arg);
return NULL;
}
You don't need the foor loop in the main. A th1->join(); th2->join(); will suffice as a wait condition since the threads never end.
To stop the threads you could use a global shared var like bool stop = false;, then when catching the signal (Ctrl+Z is a signal in UNIX), set stop = true aborting the threads, since you are waiting with join() the main program will also exit.
example
void *func1(){
while(!stop){
//do something
}
}