I am working on an application where I need to detect a system shutdown.
However, I have not found any reliable way get a notification on this event.
I know that on shutdown, my app will receive a SIGTERM signal followed by a SIGKILL. I want to know if there is any way to query if a SIGTERM is part of a shutdown sequence?
Does any one know if there is a way to query that programmatically (C API)?
As far as I know, the system does not provide any other method to query for an impending shutdown. If it does, that would solve my problem as well. I have been trying out runlevels as well, but change in runlevels seem to be instantaneous and without any prior warnings.
Maybe a little bit late. Yes, you can determine if a SIGTERM is in a shutting down process by invoking the runlevel command. Example:
#!/bin/bash
trap "runlevel >$HOME/run-level; exit 1" term
read line
echo "Input: $line"
save it as, say, term.sh and run it. By executing killall term.sh, you should able to see and investigate the run-level file in your home directory. By executing any of the following:
sudo reboot
sudo halt -p
sudo shutdown -P
and compare the difference in the file. Then you should have the idea on how to do it.
There is no way to determine if a SIGTERM is a part of a shutdown sequence. To detect a shutdown sequence you can either use use rc.d scripts like ereOn and Eric Sepanson suggested or use mechanisms like DBus.
However, from a design point of view it makes no sense to ignore SIGTERM even if it is not part of a shutdown. SIGTERM's primary purpose is to politely ask apps to exit cleanly and it is not likely that someone with enough privileges will issue a SIGTERM if he/she does not want the app to exit.
From man shutdown:
If the time argument is used, 5 minutes before the system goes down
the /etc/nologin file is created to ensure that further logins shall
not be allowed.
So you can test existence of /etc/nologin. It is not optimal, but probably best you can get.
Its a little bit of a hack but if the server is running systemd if you can run
/bin/systemctl list-jobs shutdown.target
... it will report ...
JOB UNIT TYPE STATE
755 shutdown.target start waiting <---- existence means shutting down
1 jobs listed.
... if the server is shutting down or rebooting ( hint: there's a reboot.target if you want to look specifically for that )
You will get No jobs running. if its not being shutdown.
You have to parse the output which is a bit messy as the systemctl doesnt return a different exit code for the two results. But it does seem reasonably reliable. You will need to watch out for a format change in the messages if you update the system however.
Making your application responding differently to some SIGTERM signals than others seems opaque and potentially confusing. It's arguable that you should always respond the same way to a given signal. Adding unusual conditions makes it harder to understand and test application behavior.
Adding an rc script that handles shutdown (by sending a special signal) is a completely standard way to handle such a problem; if this script is installed as part of a standard package (make install or rpm/deb packaging) there should be no worries about control of user machines.
I think I got it.
Source =
https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/busybox/blob/master/miscutils/runlevel.c
I copy part of the code here, just in case the reference disappears.
#include "libbb.h"
...
struct utmp *ut;
char prev;
if (argv[1]) utmpname(argv[1]);
setutent();
while ((ut = getutent()) != NULL) {
if (ut->ut_type == RUN_LVL) {
prev = ut->ut_pid / 256;
if (prev == 0) prev = 'N';
printf("Runlevel: prev=%c current=%c\n", prev, ut->ut_pid % 256);
endutent();
return 0;
}
}
puts("unknown");
see man systemctl, you can determine if the system is shutting down like this:
if [ "`systemctl is-system-running`" = "stopping" ]; then
# Do what you need
fi
this is in bash, but you can do it with 'system' in C
The practical answer to do what you originally wanted is that you check for the shutdown process (e.g ps aux | grep "shutdown -h" ) and then, if you want to be sure you check it's command line arguments and time it was started (e.g. "shutdown -h +240" started at 14:51 will shutdown at 18:51).
In the general case there is from the point of view of the entire system there is no way to do this. There are many different ways a "shutdown" can happen. For example someone can decide to pull the plug in order to hard stop a program that they now has bad/dangerous behaviour at shutdown time or a UPS could first send a SIGHUP and then simply fail. Since such a shutdown can happen suddenly and with no warning anywhere in a system there is no way to be sure that it's okay to keep running after a SIGHUP.
If a process receives SIGHUP you should basically assume that something nastier will follow soon. If you want to do something special and partially ignore SIGHUP then a) you need to coordinate that with whatever program will do the shutdown and b) you need to be ready that if some other system does the shutdown and kills you dead soon after a SIGHUP your software and data will survive. Write out any data you have and only continue writing to append-only files with safe atomic updates.
For your case I'm almost sure your current solution (treat all SIGHUPs as a shutdown) is the correct way to go. If you want to improve things, you should probably add a feature to the shutdown program which does a notify via DBUS or something similar.
When the system shuts down, the rc.d scripts are called.
Maybe you can add a script there that sends some special signal to your program.
However, I doubt you can stop the system shutdown that way.
Related
For a C application accessed via CGI-BIN, documentation online for accessing the process and breaking in GDB relies on manipulating the source code (i.e. adding an infinite loop), in order for the process to be available long enough for a developer to attach, exit the loop, and debug.
Is it feasible that a tool could monitor the process list, and attach via GDB, immediately breaking in order for a developer to achieve this without requiring source code changes?
The rough structure of what I have in mind to develop is something along the lines of:
1. My process monitors the process list on the system.
2. A process matching the name of my application, and owner Apache appears in the list.
3. My process immediately performs a 'pgrep' and 'gdb -p' command, then sending a break-point command to pause the process.
4. The developer can then access the process and look at the flow of execution.
Is this feasible as an idea or not possible due to some constraints (i.e. a race condition which may not always be fufilled?)
Is this feasible
Sure: a trivial shell script will do:
while true; do
PID=$(pgrep my_app)
if [[ -n "$PID" ]]; then
gdb -p "$PID"
fi
done
a race condition
The problem is that between pgrep and gdb -p the application may make significant progress, or even run to completion.
The only way to avoid that is to intercept all execve system calls on the system, as Tom Tromey's preattach.stp does.
Not sure where to start on the above question.
I have systemd process (A) running with some file handling capabilities.
The requirement is to notify (A) when a file is created by another process (B) at a certain location (say /tmp/abc.txt).
Upon receiving the notification, (A) can open the file and do its parsing/caching and close it. I believe we can queue the requests if (A) is already processing something.
Is this requirement even possible? If yes, is there a traditional/systemd design pattern to go about it? If not, can this be achieved in any alternate way?
You can either use the inotify API, as Tesseract mentioned, or employ a systemd path unit (which also uses inotify under the hood):
# foo.path
[Path]
PathExists=/tmp/abc.txt
# foo.service
[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/A
Note that this will start foo.service each time the file is created, not notify it. From your question it’s not clear to me if that’s okay for your case or not – if you want to do some operation on the file and then do nothing until the next time the file pops up, that should be fine (exit from the service and set Type=oneshot in that case).
So I have this old, nasty piece of C code that I inherited on this project from a software engineer that has moved on to greener pastures. The good news is... IT RUNS! Even better news is that it appears to be bug free.
The problem is that it was designed to run on a server with a set of start up parameters input on the command line. Now, there is a NEW requirement that this server is reconfigurable (didn't see that one coming...). Basically, if the server receives a command over UDP, it either starts this program, stops it, or restarts it with new start up parameters passed in via the UDP port.
Basically the code that I'm considering using to run the obfuscated program is something like this (sorry I don't have the actual source in front of me, it's 12:48AM and I can't sleep, so I hope the pseudo-code below will suffice):
//my "bad_process_manager"
int manage_process_of_doom() {
while(true) {
if (socket_has_received_data) {
int return_val = ParsePacket(packet_buffer);
// if statement ordering is just for demonstration, the real one isn't as ugly...
if (packet indicates shutdown) {
system("killall bad_process"); // process name is totally unique so I'm good?
} else if (packet indicates restart) {
system("killall bad_process"); // stop old configuration
// start with new parameters that were from UDP packet...
system("./my_bad_process -a new_param1 -b new_param2 &");
} else { // just start
system("./my_bad_process -a new_param1 -b new_param2 &");
}
}
}
So as a result of the system() calls that I have to make, I'm wondering if there's a neater way of doing so without all the system() calls. I want to make sure that I've exhausted all possible options without having to crack open the C file. I'm afraid that actually manipulating all these values on the fly would result in having to rewrite the whole file I've inherited since it was never designed to be configurable while the program is running.
Also, in terms of starting the process, am I correct to assume that throwing the "&" in the system() call will return immediately, just like I would get control of the terminal back if I ran that line from the command line? Finally, is there a way to ensure that stderr (and maybe even stdout) gets printed to the same terminal screen that the "manager" is running on?
Thanks in advance for your help.
What you need from the server:
Ideally your server process that you're controlling should be creating some sort of PID file. Also ideally, this server process should hold an exclusive lock on the PID file as long as it is still running. This allows us to know if the PID file is still valid or the server has died.
Receive shutdown message:
Try to get a lock on the PID file, if it succeeds, you have nothing to kill (the server has died, if you proceed to the kill regardless, you may kill the wrong process), just remove the old PID file.
If the lock fails, read the PID file and do a kill() on the PID, remove the old PID file.
Receive start message:
You'll need to fork() a new process, then choose your flavor of exec() to start the new server process. The server itself should of course recreate its PID file and take a lock on it.
Receive restart message:
Same as Shutdown followed by Start.
I have written a program which I run after connecting to the box over SSH. It has some user interaction such as selecting options after being prompted, and usually I wait for the processes it carries out to finish before logging out which closes the terminal and ends the program. But now the process is quite lengthy and I don't want to wait whilst being logged in, so how could I implement a workaround for this in C please?
You can run a program in the background by following the command with "&"
wget -m www.google.com &
Or, you could use the "screen" program, that allows you to attach-deattach sessions
screen wget -m www.google.com
(PRESS CTRL+D)
screen -r (TO RE ATTACH)
http://linux.die.net/man/1/screen
The process is sent the HUP signal when the shell exits. All you have to do is install a signal handler that ignores SIGHUP.
Or just run the program using nohup.
The traditional way to do this is using the nohup(1) command:
nohup mycmd < /dev/null >& output.log &
Of course if you don't care about the output you can send it to /dev/null too, or you could take input from a file if you wanted.
Doing it this way will protect your process from a SIGHUP that would normally cause it to exit. You'll also want to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr like above, as you'll be ending your ssh session.
Syntax shown above is for bash.
you can use screen command. here is a tutorial. note you might need to install it to your systems.
There are many options :-) TIMTOWTDI… However, for your purposes, you might look into running a command-line utility such as dtach or GNU screen.
If you actually want to implement something in C, you could re-invent that wheel, but from your description of the problem, I doubt it should be necessary…
The actual C code to background a process is trivial:
//do interactive stuff...
if(fork())
exit(0);
//cool, I've been daemonized.
If you know the code will never wind up on a non-linux-or-BSD machine, you could even use daemon()
//interactive...
daemon(0, 0);
//background...
I have written a program which calculates the amount of battery level available in my laptop. I have also defined a threshold value in the program. Whenever the battery level falls below threshold i would like to call another process. I have used system("./invoke.o") where invoke.o is the program that i have to run. I am running a script which runs the battery level checker program for every 5 seconds. Everything is working fine but when i close the bash shell the automatic invocation of invoke.o is not happening. How should i make the invoke.o to be invoked irrespective of whether bash is closed or not??. I am using UBUNTU LINUX
Try running it as: nohup ./myscript.sh, where the nohup command allows you to close the shell without terminating the process.
You could run your script as a cron job. This lets cron set up standard input and output for you, reschedule the job, and it will send you email if it fails.
The alternative is to run a script in the background with all input and output, including standard error output, redirected.
While you could make a proper daemon out of your program that kind of effort is probably not necessary.
man nohup
man upstart
man 2 setsid (more complex, leads to longer trail of breadcrumbs on daemon launching).