I'm not sure if I am even barking up the right tree here... but here goes.
I'm trying to pass data from my parent process to all children. It's a simple server program that basically will keep a list of connected clients and then send the routing table of connected clients to every client. This is eventually going to include a struct of information about each client... but for right now I just want to get every forked process to get the same information from the parent.
In the parent process, first I set up my pipes and set them to nonblocking (for when there isn't any new data available in the pipe). After a connection is made with a client the number of entries variable is increased to reflect this new connection. I then fork a child process to a new function and update my array of pipes with the new number of table entries (I have 10 pipes at the moment to see if I needed to keep a separate pipe for each child).
pid_t pid;
int numchildren;
int i, n;
/* Create the pipes. */
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
if (pipe (mypipe[i]))
{
fprintf (stderr, "Pipe failed.\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
}
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
for(n=0; n<2; n++)
{
// Get previous flags
int f = fcntl(mypipe[i][n], F_GETFL, 0);
// Set bit for non-blocking flag
f |= O_NONBLOCK;
// Change flags on fd
fcntl(mypipe[i][n], F_SETFL, f);
}
//close(mypipe[i][0]);
}
pid = fork();
if (pid == (pid_t) 0)
{
close (mypipe[numentries-1][1]);
recievecmds(new_fd, mypipe[numentries-1][0]);
close(new_fd);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
else if (pid < (pid_t) 0)
{
fprintf (stderr, "Fork failed.\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
else
{
sprintf (buf,"%d",numentries);
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)
write(mypipe[i][1], buf, strlen(buf));
memset(&buf, 0, sizeof buf);
}
And then I try to read whats in the pipe in the recievecmds() function:
nbytes = read(mypipe[childindex][0], buf, sizeof(buf));
The first client connected tells me numentries = 1, the second client tells me numentries = 2 and so on. I mean I really don't even see the point for a pipe since it seems that whatever I put in the pipe I could just pass it in the function I called on the fork. Am I going about this the wrong way? It's been very frustrating trying to figure this out. How can I keep all of my child processes updated concurrently from my parent process?
Thank you so much in advance.
edit - My main problem was that I was redeclaring the pipe everytime in an infinite while loop. Very dumb mistake, immediately realized that was probably the root of my problem. However, while now the first child/pipe combo contains the correct data... the second does not. I'll see if I can figure this out on my own, thanks for the advice!
Of course now I'm running into problems because I manually select an option to get the data off the pipe. I'm going to have to think up a way to maybe either get the data for all pipes every time it's updated or make sure to get just the newest data (probably just one char at a time).
Thanks for putting up with me guys! And I apologize about not posting the whole program... but there's quite a bit. I definitely should have mentioned that I have it in an infinite loop.
Various observations
Don't make the pipes non-blocking; you want the children to block when there's no data. At least, in the early phases of the design; later, you may want to let them get on with work when there's no data waiting.
You need to be careful with your plumbing. The parent needs 10 pipes, one for each child. But it only needs the write end of the pipe, not the read end.
The children each need one pipe, for reading. Any superfluous pipes (for example, the write ends of the pipes that the parent had already opened before forking the Nth child) need to be closed.
You could consider using threads - in which case you could perhaps pass the data to the children. But in the long term, it appears that you will be periodically passing data to the children, and then you need a mechanism to get the data to them (other than the function call).
Pipes are 'easy' as long as you pay meticulous attention to which file descriptors are in use. Close all the descriptors you do not need.
The parent will have to loop around all ten pipes writing the same data to each.
It will also need to consider what to do if a child exits. It should close the pipe (no use any more), and decide whether to start a new child (but how will it ensure that the new child has all the accumulated information it needs?).
Watch out for SIGPIPE - maybe install a handler, or maybe use SIG_IGN and detect write errors instead of signals.
Working code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <string.h>
enum { NUM_CHILDREN = 10 };
enum { NUM_MESSAGES = 10 };
static int write_pipes[NUM_CHILDREN];
static int n_pipes;
static void be_childish(int *pipe)
{
int i;
char buffer[32];
int nbytes;
int pid = getpid();
close(pipe[1]);
for (i = 0; i < n_pipes; i++)
close(write_pipes[i]);
printf("Child %d\n", pid);
while ((nbytes = read(pipe[0], buffer, sizeof(buffer))) > 0)
{
printf("Child %d: %d %.*s\n", pid, nbytes, nbytes, buffer);
fflush(0);
}
printf("Child %d: finished\n", pid);
exit(0);
}
int main(void)
{
pid_t pid;
int i, j;
/* Create the pipes and the children. */
for (i = 0; i < NUM_CHILDREN; i++)
{
int new_pipe[2];
if (pipe(new_pipe))
{
int errnum = errno;
fprintf(stderr, "Pipe failed (%d: %s)\n", errnum, strerror(errnum));
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
if ((pid = fork()) < 0)
{
int errnum = errno;
fprintf(stderr, "Fork failed (%d: %s)\n", errnum, strerror(errnum));
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
else if (pid == 0)
{
be_childish(new_pipe);
}
else
{
close(new_pipe[0]);
write_pipes[n_pipes++] = new_pipe[1];
}
}
for (i = 0; i < NUM_MESSAGES; i++)
{
char message[30];
int len;
snprintf(message, sizeof(message), "Message %d", i);
len = strlen(message);
for (j = 0; j < n_pipes; j++)
{
if (write(write_pipes[j], message, len) != len)
{
/* Inferior error handling; first failure causes termination */
fprintf(stderr, "Write failed (child %d)\n", j);
exit(1);
}
}
sleep(1);
}
printf("Parent complete\n");
return 0;
}
I'd suggest using a shared memory segment. Your parent and child processes can mmap the same file, and read/write state to it. This can be an actual file, or an anonymous memory segment. This is exactly what Apache does with their ScoreBoardFile.
Related
I have to do this as a university project so I cant share the whole code, im sorry for that.
I have to create a function called "read" that enables the user to create new env variables, thats the easy part. The problem comes when I call that function as the last one of the commands array e.g "ls | grep aux.txt | read a" this should give the env var A the value aux.txt, the problem is that it get stuck in the
fgets(value, sizeof(value),stdin);
and I cant even recover the terminal.
Thanks in advance for the help if you need more info about the problem I will happily give it.
I can't reproduce exactly the main function as there are parts that are not mine but I hope this helps:
char **argvv;
int fd[2][2];
int pid;
int main(int argc, char ***argvv) {
argvv[0][0] = "echo";
argvv[0][1] = "elpmaxe";
argvv[1][0] = "rev";
argvv[2][0] = "read";
argvv[2][1] = "a";
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
pipe(fd[i]);
}
for(int i = 0; i< 3; i++){
pid = fork();
if(pid == 0){
if(i ==0){
dup2(fd[0][1], 1);
fun_close(fd);
execvp(argvv[0][0], argvv[0]);
}
if(i == 1){
dup2(fd[0][0], 0);
dup2(fd[1][1], 1);
fun_close(fd);
execvp(argvv[1][0], argvv[0]);
}
}else{
if(i == 2){
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[0][0]);
fun_read("read a", 3, fd[1]);
}
}
}
int corpse;
int status;
while ((corpse = wait(&status)) > 0)
printf("Child %d exited with status 0x%.4X\n", corpse, status);
return 0;
void fun_close(int **fd){
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
}
And here is the fun_read:
int fun_read(char **command, int argc, int fd[]){
char **env_varv;
char value[1024];
char last_var[1024];
long size = 0;
char *token;
int status;
char *delim = " \t\n";
env_varv = malloc((argc-1) * sizeof(char *));
for(int i = 1; i < argc; i++){
env_varv[i-1] = strdup(command[i]);
wait(status);
}
if (fd[0] !=0){
printf("%d\n", fd[0]);
dup2(fd[0],0);
close(fd[0]);
close(fd[1]);
}
fgets(value, sizeof(value),stdin);
int i = 0;
token = strtok(value, delim);
last_var[0] = '\0';
while(token != NULL){
if(i == argc-2){
while (token != NULL){
strcat(last_var,token);
setenv(env_varv[i],last_var,1);
token = strtok(NULL,delim);
strcat(last_var," ");
}
}
else if (env_varv[i] != NULL){
setenv(env_varv[i],token,1);
token = strtok(NULL,delim);
i++;
}
else{
break;
}
}
return 0;
The program should put an envariomental variable called a with the value of example.
postscript: it seems like there is no problem if the previous command is a builtin "echo hi | echo hi2 | read a" $a=hi2
Sincerely I have tried all, changing the pipes doesnt work, changing fgets for read doesn't help either. Is the only part of the code I haven't been able to fix
This fragment of code shows some problems:
char ***argvv;
int fd[2][2];
int pid;
int main(int argc, char ***argvv) {
argvv[0][0] = "echo";
argvv[0][1] = "elpmaxe";
argvv[1][0] = "rev";
argvv[2][0] = "read";
argvv[2][1] = "a";
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
pipe(fd[i]);
}
for(int i = 0; i< 3; i++){
pid = fork();
if(pid == 0){
if(i ==0){
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
dup2(fd[0][1], 1);
execvp(argvv[0][0], argvv[0]);
}
if(i = 1){
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
dup2(fd[0][0], 0);
dup2(fd[1][1], 1);
execvp(argvv[1][0], argvv[0]);
}
if(i = 2){
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
dup2(fd[1][0], 0);
fun_read("read a", 3, fd[1]);
}
}
}
Rule of Thumb
You aren't closing enough pipe file descriptors in any of the processes.
If you dup2()
one end of a pipe to standard input or standard output, close both of the
original file descriptors returned by
pipe()
as soon as possible.
In particular, you should close them before using any of the
exec*()
family of functions.
The rule also applies if you duplicate the descriptors with either
dup()
or
fcntl()
with F_DUPFD or F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC.
Other comments on the use of pipes
If the parent process will not communicate with any of its children via
the pipe, it must ensure that it closes both ends of the pipe early
enough (before waiting, for example) so that its children can receive
EOF indications on read (or get SIGPIPE signals or write errors on
write), rather than blocking indefinitely.
Even if the parent uses the pipe without using dup2(), it should
normally close at least one end of the pipe — it is extremely rare for
a program to read and write on both ends of a single pipe.
Note that the O_CLOEXEC option to
open(),
and the FD_CLOEXEC and F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC options to fcntl() can also factor
into this discussion.
If you use
posix_spawn()
and its extensive family of support functions (21 functions in total),
you will need to review how to close file descriptors in the spawned process
(posix_spawn_file_actions_addclose(),
etc.).
Note that using dup2(a, b) is safer than using close(b); dup(a);
for a variety of reasons.
One is that if you want to force the file descriptor to a larger than
usual number, dup2() is the only sensible way to do that.
Another is that if a is the same as b (e.g. both 0), then dup2()
handles it correctly (it doesn't close b before duplicating a)
whereas the separate close() and dup() fails horribly.
This is an unlikely, but not impossible, circumstance.
Analyzing your code
The parent process has the pipes open; if the commands are reading from the pipes, they won't get EOF until the parent process closes them. Although you close most of the pipes in the child processes, you don't close those that you duplicate to the standard I/O channels — and yet that is required too.
Note that if (i = 1) should be if (i == 1), and if (i = 2) should be if (i == 2). The first of those bugs prevents your fun_read() from being invoked — which is why it isn't responding. Using diagnostic printing to standard error would confirm that fun_read() is never called.
So, at bare minimum, you need to have code like this:
char ***argvv;
int fd[2][2];
int pid;
int main(int argc, char ***argvv)
{
argvv[0][0] = "echo";
argvv[0][1] = "elpmaxe";
argvv[1][0] = "rev";
argvv[2][0] = "read";
argvv[2][1] = "a";
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
pipe(fd[i]);
}
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
if (i == 0)
{
dup2(fd[0][1], 1);
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
execvp(argvv[0][0], argvv[0]);
fprintf(stderr, "failed to execute %s\n", argvv[0][0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (i == 1)
{
dup2(fd[0][0], 0);
dup2(fd[1][1], 1);
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
execvp(argvv[1][0], argvv[0]);
fprintf(stderr, "failed to execute %s\n", argvv[1][0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (i == 2)
{
dup2(fd[1][0], 0);
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
fun_read("read a", 3, fd[1]);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
}
}
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
/* wait loop here - and not before */
int corpse;
int status;
while ((corpse = wait(&status)) > 0)
printf("Child %d exited with status 0x%.4X\n", corpse, status);
return 0;
}
Note that it is important to handle failure to execute. And error messages should be reported to standard error, not to standard output.
Given that the same sequence of 4 calls to close() is made 4 times, a function to do the job seems appropriate. You could make it:
static inline void close_pipes(int fd[2][2])
{
close(fd[0][0]);
close(fd[0][1]);
close(fd[1][0]);
close(fd[1][1]);
}
There is a decent chance the compiler will inline the function, but it is easier to see that the same 4 descriptors are closed if one function always does the closing. For bigger arrays of pipes (more processes), you'd have a loop inside the close_pipes() function with a counter as well as the array.
There are still some issues to be resolved, notably with the fun_read() function. The fd[1] file descriptors were both closed, so passing those to fun_read() doesn't seem likely to be useful. Since fun_read() is executed in a separate process, any changes made by fun_read() won't be reflected in the parent process. There are probably other problems too.
AFAICT, on looking at fun_read() more closely, the fd argument should not be needed at all. The paragraph of code:
if (fd[0] != 0) {
printf("%d\n", fd[0]);
dup2(fd[0], 0);
}
is not useful. You've already redirected standard input so it comes from the pipe and then closed the pipe file descriptor. This paragraph then changes standard input to come from the closed descriptor, which isn't going to help anything. But none of this helps you with the fact that anything done by fun_read() is done in a child process of your shell, so the environment in the main shell is not going to be affected.
I am forking a child which will run an infinite loop and do some things. Text will be printed to stdout with printf when the child is in a 'ready' status. I am redirecting the child's stdout with a pipe so the parent can see it. When this text prints I would like the parent to be unblocked.
The problem seems to be that the read() call will stay blocked even after the printf() call.
Here is some sample code I am working with:
parent:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main()
{
int fd[2];
pipe(fd);
char buffer[256];
switch(fork())
{
case -1:
printf("fork failed\n");
_exit(1);
case 0:
printf("Starting progtest...\n");
close(fd[0]);
dup2(fd[1], STDOUT_FILENO);
close(fd[1]);
execl("progtest", "progtest", NULL);
perror("exec failed");
_exit(1);
}
close(fd[1]);
read(fd[0], &buffer, sizeof(buffer));
close(fd[0]);
printf("buffer: %s\n", buffer);
}
child:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("ready\n");
while(1)
{
// stuff happens here
}
return 0;
}
I'm pretty sure the pipe is set up correctly. If I remove the infinite loop the parent will unblock and print "ready".
Is there any way I can use read() while the child is still running? Am I going about this incorrectly by using pipes? I need to do this twice with two different status messages.
It seems you are trying to perform inter process communication (IPC). There is no 1 to 1 communication syncronization with reads/write, the parent or child can write as much as they want to the file descriptor at once, and since they are running asynchronously you must ensure you are ready to deal with this.
Normally this is done by sending a header with each message that is a fixed size, containing the length of the payload. For example:
protocol header
#include <stdint.h>
struct Message
{
uint8_t length; // assuming a maximum message length of 255 bytes, adjust as needed.
};
You can define extra things here, usually it's a good idea to include the version, perhaps a sequence ID, etc. It is important that if you are communicating across a network, this header's size is absolute on all hardware implementations, so the use of stdint defines is required to ensure compatibility between architectures. It is also a good idea to ensure the endian is consistent if working across architectures also.
sending a message
const char data[] = "example";
// create a buffer large enough to pack the header and data into it
const uint8_t len = strlen(data) + 1;
char buffer[sizeof(struct Message) + len];
// populate the header
struct Message *m = (struct Message *)buffer;
m->length = len;
// copy in the payload after the header
memcpy(buffer + sizeof(struct Message), data, len);
// write the packed buffer
write(fd, buffer, sizeof(struct Message) + len);
reading a message
struct Message m;
if (read(fd, &m, sizeof(struct Message)) != sizeof(struct Message))
{
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to read the header\n");
exit(1);
}
// If required perform validation on the header here
ssize_t offset = 0;
char data[m.length];
while(offset < m.length)
{
ssize_t r = read(fd, data + offset, m.length - offset);
if (r < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Read of message body failed\n");
exit(1);
}
if (r == 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "The sender closed the connection\n");
exit(1);
}
offset += r;
}
printf("Message Length: %u, Message Data: %s\n", m.length, data);
The while loop to read is requires as the data may have been split up into chunks if the sender exceeded the write buffer and is now blocking waiting to write the remainder. The header can also be split across chunks and ideally should also be read using the same technique, but for brevity I have left this out.
I'm trying to write a program that reads some text from a file and prints it to the screen. The parent will read the content of the file write it to n number of pipes and the children will read it and then print it.
So far this is what I've got:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <string.h>
int main (void)
{
pid_t pid;
char c;
FILE *fd;
char buf[100];
int N_CHILDREN = 2;
int p[N_CHILDREN][2];
int i,j;
for(i=0; i<N_CHILDREN; i++)
{
pipe(p[i]);
}
fd=fopen("123.txt","r");
for(j=0; j < N_CHILDREN;j++)
{
pid = fork ();
if (pid == 0)
{
close (p[j][1]);
while(read(p[j][0], &fd,sizeof(buf)) > 0)
printf("\n%c",&fd);
}
if (pid < 0)
{
//Fork Failed
fprintf (stderr, "Fork failure.\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
if ( pid > 0) //Parent
{
close (p[j][0]);
write(p[j][1], fd ,sizeof(buf));
}
}
}
Problem is it's not really reading the content from the file. I've tried sending it a string of characters instead of reading from a file and it worked as intended, both children printed the message one time and the program ended.
Any thoughts about it? After reading the manuals I still can't see where the problem is.
You are confusing C Standard I/O streams (created with fopen(); written to with fprintf() et al., read with fscanf() et al.) with Unix file descriptor I/O (created with open() or pipe() et al., written to with write() et al., read with read() et al.)
Standard I/O functions take an opaque FILE * as a handle; Unix I/O functions take a file descriptor (a small int) as a handle.
Once you understand the conceptual difference, I'm sure you will realize that
FILE *fd = ...
read(..., &fd, ...);
is reading into a pointer-to-FILE -- not terribly useful :-)
Several problems here:
you make bad usage of read function by passing &fd, which is a FILE*. This function needs a pointer to the "buffer" to print, here I guess buf.
you don't check errors. For example if fopen fails.
you never read data from your file, so you have "nothing" to send to children.
you have to get returned value of read (in children) because it is the effective amount of data that you get. So it is the amount of data that you have to print after that (to stdout).
So here is an example code, see comments inside:
// put here all the needed includes (see manpages of functions)
// it is better to create a function for the child: the code
// is easier to read
// the child just get the file descriptor to read (the pipe)
void child(int fd) {
char buf[100]; // buffer to store data read
int ret; // the number of bytes that are read
// we read from 'fd', into 'buf'. It returns the number of bytes
// really read (could be smaller than size). Return <=0 when over
while((ret = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf))) > 0) {
// write the 'ret' bytes to STDOUT (which as file descriptor 1)
write(1, buf, ret);
}
}
int main (void) {
pid_t pid;
char buf[100];
int N_CHILDREN = 2;
int p[N_CHILDREN][2];
int i,j, ret;
int fdi;
// create the pipes
for(i=0; i<N_CHILDREN; i++) {
if (pipe(p[i]) == -1) {
perror("pipe"); // ALWAYS check for errors
exit(1);
}
}
// open the file (with 'open' not 'fopen', more suitable for
// reading raw data
fdi = open("123.txt",O_RDONLY);
if (fdi < 0) {
perror("open"); // ALWAYS check for errors
exit(1);
}
// just spawn the children
for(j=0; j < N_CHILDREN;j++) {
pid = fork();
if (pid < 0) {
perror("fork"); // ALWAYS check for errors
exit(1);
}
if (pid == 0) { // child
close(p[j][1]); // close the writing part
child(p[j][0]); // call child function with corresp. FD
exit(0); // leave : the child should do nothing else
}
}
// don't need that part
for(j=0; j<N_CHILDREN; j++) {
close(p[j][0]); // close the read-part of pipes
}
// need to read file content, see comment in child() function
while ((ret = read(fdi, buf, sizeof(buf))) > 0) {
// write the data to all children
for(j=0; j<N_CHILDREN; j++) {
write(p[j][1], buf , ret); // we write the size we get
}
}
// close everithing
for(j=0; j<N_CHILDREN; j++) {
close(p[j][1]); // needed, see text after
}
close(fdi); // close read file
return(0); // main returns a int, 0 is "ok"
}
You have to close every parts of pipes when not needed or when it is over. Until a file descriptor is open a read will block the process. Only when last write counterpart is closed the read returns <=0.
Note: 1. the correct usage of read/write function 2. checking for errors 3. reading from the file and writing to the pipe(s) 4. dealing with effective amount of data read (ret variable) so that you can write (to "screen" or to an other file descriptor the right amount of data.
You're not reading anything in to buf as far as I can tell.
I want to preface this with the fact that I have no formal education in the use of pipes, so this is my first venture. Not to mention that I couldn't find any similar questions to my situation.
Note: This IS part of a larger project for a school assignment, so I am NOT asking for anyone to do this for me. I would just like some direction/helpful code segments. (I have tried to make this as generic as possible to avoid "cheater" remarks.)
I am trying to run a for-loop over int k elements in which a parent process spawns off k children with fork() and execl(), and then use a pipe() to send the output back to the parent. Here is some generic code that I am trying to use and the error/problem in which I encounter:
Note: helloworld= an executable compiled with GCC that produces printf("hello world\n");
int k = 10; //The number of children to make
int fd[2]; //Used for each pipe
int readFromMe[k]; //Holds the file IDs of each pipe fd[0]
int writeToMe[k]; //Holds the file IDs of each pipe fd[1]
int processID[k]; //Holds the list of child process IDs
//Create children
int i;
for(i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
if(pipe(fd) == -1)
{
printf("Error - Pipe error.\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
//Store the pipe ID
readFromMe[i] = fd[0];
writeToMe[i] = fd[1];
if((processID[i] = fork()) == -1)
{
fprintf(stderr, "fork failure");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
//If it is a child, change the STDOUT to the pipe-write file descriptor, and exec
if(processID[i] == 0)
{
dup2 (writeToMe[i], STDOUT_FILENO);
close(readFromMe[i]);
execl("./helloworld", (char *)0);
}
//If it is the parent, just close the unnecessary pipe-write descriptor and continue itterating
else
{
close(writeToMe[i]);
}
}
//Buffer for output
char output[100000];
//Read from each pipe and print out the result
for(i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
int r = read(readFromMe[i], &output, (sizeof(char) * 100000));
if(r > 0)
{
printf("result = %s\n", output);
}
close(readFromMe[i]);
}
I get no output from my program at all, so I am trying to figure out why this issue is occurring.
Probably unrelated, but you call execl wrong. The extra arguments after the program is what will the the argv array to the other programs main function. And as you know it always have one entry, the program name. So you need to call it like this:
execl("./helloworld", "helloworld", NULL);
More related to your problem, you should also check for errors, it might actually fail.
Try printing the value of 'r' in your printout function. I suspect the read is returning an error (perhaps EPIPE) that you're not seeing. Also, you example code is trying to printf 'c', not output like it looks like you meant.
I'm a little confused on how to properly use pipe() to pass integer values between two processes.
In my program I first create a pipe, then I fork it. I assume I have "Two" pipes then?
From what I understand, this is my assignment.
My parent goes through a for loop checking an integer value "i" for a certain operation, increases a count variable, and saves value into an array. After each check my parent should pass an integer value, "i" to my child through a pipe. My child then uses that integer value, does some check on the value, and should increase a count variable, and save the result in a [shared?] array. Eventually; the child should return it's final count to the parent, who then prints out the two counts, and the "Shared" array.
-> I'm not sure I need to have a shared array or to save the results at all. I may only need the counts - the homework was ambiguous and I'm awaiting a response from the professor. Also; can I even do a shared array between processes? It sounds like a start of some problem to me.
-> Here are my questions:
One; how do I use pipes for integers? I've only seen them for character arrays and previous answers don't seem to think this is possible or legal..? I'm not sure. There was no resolution that I could find on it.
-> How do I use a unidirectional pipe to pass integers to a child? And have the child return something? I'm not sure how I'm able to... differentiate between the two pipes. I do "know" [or think I know] that I have to close one unused portion of each pipe to avoid "Some vague problem".
Sorry for the dumb questions; I haven't been taught processes (aside from fork) or pipes (at all) yet in this class - so I'm not really sure where to start!
Heres parts of my code - it's not pretty and it doesn't work and I don't expect it to. It's more of a shell placeholder. Once I figure out how to use a pipe - I'd Probably make the code make sense.
int main(void)
{
int fd[2];
pid_t childpid;
pid_t parentpid;
int i;
int threecount = 0;
int fivecount = 0;;
int results [MAXSIZE];
parentpid = getpid(); //Get current process ID number
pipe(fd);
childpid = fork();
if(childpid == 0){
close(fd[0]); //Closing this for some other reason
}
int j = 0;
if(childpid > 0)
close(fd[1]); //Closing this for some reason
if( childpid == -1 )
{
perror("Failed to fork\n");
return 1;
}
if (childpid > 0)
{
for(i = 1; i < MAXSIZE;i++)
{
if(i % 5 == 0)
{
fivecount++;
i = results[j];
j++;
wait(NULL);
}
}
}
else if (childpid == 0)
{
if(i % 3 == 0) //This i here should probably be the i value above, piped to the child
{
threecount++;
i = results[j]; //This should be part of th pipe
j++; //Trying to keep count of that shared array, not really the right way to do it though.
}
}
printf("%d %d \n", fivecount,threecount);
return 0;
}
This is about as lame (and no error checking, btw) a sample as I can muster for using a pipe to send int from a parent to a child process, where the child was launched from fork(). It gets more complicated (obviously) for sending and receiving data, but i can't do everything for you. This just forks and waits for an int (actually, the number of bytes that are used by an int) from the child.
Update: Added send+response two-way communication example after this one. See the second code listing for more information.
Hope it helps.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int fd[2];
int val = 0;
// create pipe descriptors
pipe(fd);
// fork() returns 0 for child process, child-pid for parent process.
if (fork() != 0)
{
// parent: writing only, so close read-descriptor.
close(fd[0]);
// send the value on the write-descriptor.
val = 100;
write(fd[1], &val, sizeof(val));
printf("Parent(%d) send value: %d\n", getpid(), val);
// close the write descriptor
close(fd[1]);
}
else
{ // child: reading only, so close the write-descriptor
close(fd[1]);
// now read the data (will block)
read(fd[0], &val, sizeof(val));
printf("Child(%d) received value: %d\n", getpid(), val);
// close the read-descriptor
close(fd[0]);
}
return 0;
}
Output:
Parent(5943) send value: 100
Child(5945) received value: 100
Update: Expanded to include send+response using two pipe sets
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
// some macros to make the code more understandable
// regarding which pipe to use to a read/write operation
//
// Parent: reads from P1_READ, writes on P1_WRITE
// Child: reads from P2_READ, writes on P2_WRITE
#define P1_READ 0
#define P2_WRITE 1
#define P2_READ 2
#define P1_WRITE 3
// the total number of pipe *pairs* we need
#define NUM_PIPES 2
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int fd[2*NUM_PIPES];
int val = 0, len, i;
pid_t pid;
// create all the descriptor pairs we need
for (i=0; i<NUM_PIPES; ++i)
{
if (pipe(fd+(i*2)) < 0)
{
perror("Failed to allocate pipes");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
}
// fork() returns 0 for child process, child-pid for parent process.
if ((pid = fork()) < 0)
{
perror("Failed to fork process");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
// if the pid is zero, this is the child process
if (pid == 0)
{
// Child. Start by closing descriptors we
// don't need in this process
close(fd[P1_READ]);
close(fd[P1_WRITE]);
// used for output
pid = getpid();
// wait for parent to send us a value
len = read(fd[P2_READ], &val, sizeof(val));
if (len < 0)
{
perror("Child: Failed to read data from pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
else if (len == 0)
{
// not an error, but certainly unexpected
fprintf(stderr, "Child: Read EOF from pipe");
}
else
{
// report what we received
printf("Child(%d): Received %d\n", pid, val);
// now double it and send it back
val *= 2;
printf("Child(%d): Sending %d back\n", pid, val);
if (write(fd[P2_WRITE], &val, sizeof(val)) < 0)
{
perror("Child: Failed to write response value");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
}
// finished. close remaining descriptors.
close(fd[P2_READ]);
close(fd[P2_WRITE]);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
// Parent. close unneeded descriptors
close(fd[P2_READ]);
close(fd[P2_WRITE]);
// used for output
pid = getpid();
// send a value to the child
val = 42;
printf("Parent(%d): Sending %d to child\n", pid, val);
if (write(fd[P1_WRITE], &val, sizeof(val)) != sizeof(val))
{
perror("Parent: Failed to send value to child ");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
// now wait for a response
len = read(fd[P1_READ], &val, sizeof(val));
if (len < 0)
{
perror("Parent: failed to read value from pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
else if (len == 0)
{
// not an error, but certainly unexpected
fprintf(stderr, "Parent(%d): Read EOF from pipe", pid);
}
else
{
// report what we received
printf("Parent(%d): Received %d\n", pid, val);
}
// close down remaining descriptors
close(fd[P1_READ]);
close(fd[P1_WRITE]);
// wait for child termination
wait(NULL);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
(compile with, e.g., gcc thisfile.c -o test)
Output
Parent(2794): Sending 42 to child
Child(2797): Received 42
Child(2797): Sending 84 back
Parent(2794): Received 84