I am doing a comparison of different IPC mechanisms available on Mac OS X (pipes, sockets, System V IPC, etc.), and I would like to see how Mach ports compare to the higher-level alternatives. However, I've run into a very basic issue: getting send rights to ports across processes (specifically, across a parent process and a child process).
Unlike file descriptors, ports are generally not carried over to forked processes. This means that some other way to transfer them must be established. Just about the only relevant page I could find about this was this one, and they state in an update that their method no longer works and never was guaranteed to, even though that method was suggested by an Apple engineer in 2009. (It implied replacing the bootstrap port, and now doing that breaks XPC.) The replacement they suggest uses deprecated functions, so that's not a very appealing solution.
Besides, one thing I liked about the old solution is that ports remained pretty much private between the processes that used it. There was no need to broadcast the existence of the port, just like pipes (from the pipe call) work once forked. (I'll probably live with it if there's another solution, but it's a little annoying.)
So, how do you pass a send right to a Mach port from a parent process to a child process?
bootstrap_register is deprecated but bootstrap_check_in isn't, and can be used to register your port which can later be retrieved by the child process by using bootstrap_look_up. (This still doesn't provide the privacy you're looking for, unfortunately).
The recommended solution is to not use Mach IPC directly at all but implementing your child process as an XPC service, in which case you can use the XPC API that will use Mach IPC behind the scene, yet you don't have to deal with any details. You have an easy API to send XPC messages in the parent and an easy API to receive XPC messages in the client, that can also pass back replies easily. The system will handle all the hard parts for you.
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/BPSystemStartup/Chapters/CreatingXPCServices.html
If you cannot use the XPC API, keep in mind that when you register your service with bootstrap_check_in() (which is not deprecated), it won't be private, but if you do so in a user space process, it will be private to your login session: root processes won't see it, processes of other users neither. If you do that in a root process, it will be visible to all sessions, though.
Also note however, that you can control who may send you IPC messages and who not. You can request a mach_msg_audit_trailer_t when receiving a mach message. That way you get access to the audit_token_t of the sender. And using audit_token_to_pid() you can get the pid_t of the sender. As you know the PID of your child, you can simply ignore all messages (passing it to mach_msg_destroy() to avoid leaking resources), unless the message was sent by your child process. So you cannot avoid your port to be discover-able, but you can avoid that any process other than your child process may use this port.
And last not but not least, you can just give your port a random name, after all only your child process needs to know it, so you can dynamicall generate a name in the parent process and the pass it along to your child process, that way your port can be seen if software scans for ports but most software just uses hardcoded names anyway.
One thing you might try (although it's a gross hack) is hijacking the exception ports as an inheritance mechanism. Set a custom port as an exception port in the parent, fork the child, have the child get the custom port from its exception port, send its task port to the parent, the parent resets its exception port, resets the child's exception port, and then the two proceed from there with a communication channel. See task_set_exception_ports().
Related
What I mean is that, when I code a project, I need to communicate with the serial port like COM1, COM2... but sometimes there is no device connected and I also can use the function CreateFile to get the COM port handle.
When I use the WriteFile function to send a string to the COM port the software blocks.
After I dig into the problem I find another function GetCommModemStatus which can get status of the COM port but when I use the usb-rs232 transition line, the second parameter always returns 0.
How can I get the COM port status so that I can check if is there some devices connected to the computer?
If I understand correctly, you want to detect if a device is connected to your COM port and ready to accept packets. If that's the case, you need to check control signals (DTR/DSR and CTS/RTS) before sending data, assuming your device is aware of them and sets the appropriate PIN on your DB-9 or DB-25 connector. Some devices rely on software handshaking instead (XON/XOFF) and do not set control signals. Your best bet would be to consult documentation of your device.
I have been using ComPort Library version 4.10 by Dejan Crnila. It does support both hardware and software handshakings, so you can focus on your own code instead of reinventing the wheel.
As several people have already pointed out, it is not a good idea to try to "re-invent the wheel." Except for "quick and dirty" testing, your code will have to handle the com port in a separate thread and the available solutions all make this much easier.
BUT, if you Really want to do it, I'll give you some pointers.
If you are using "WriteFile" then you have probably already figured out the "CreateFile" part of the procedure and how complicated things can get depends upon what kind of IO you specified in that procedure, Overlapped or not. Overlapped IO is more complicated but does let the OS handle some of the burden.
You mentioned that your call to "WriteFile" hangs. You should look up the "SetCommTimeOuts" function. Setting both the WriteTotalTimeoutMultiplier and WriteTotalTimeoutConstant members of TCommTimeouts to zero will tell the OS to return immediately. You may also need to "SetCommMask" if your target uses handshaking.
What happens next really depends on what your target is supposed to do. The GetCommMask function can be used to check the status of the handshake lines.
When an application process launches an XPC helper process, it doesn't actually do the fork()/exec() itself in the classic UNIX style. Instead, it sends a message to launchd, which does the dirty work for it. Thus, if you query the parent process on the XPC process, it comes back as the launchd process.
However, if you open Activity Monitor in the hierarchical process view, the XPC helper processes are all shown below the original application that requested them, for example:
In the software I'm working on, knowing this relationship between processes would be extremely useful. So far we've been using the regular BSD parent process information, but as everything moves towards XPC, this isn't much use anymore.
So:
Where is the "original" parent process information stored for XPC processes?
How does Activity Monitor access it?
There is a kext involved, so I'd be happy to pull this information straight out in the kernel instead of userspace, but I can't seem to even figure out where it's stored.
Update: Discussion on Apple's darwin-kernel mailing list: http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-kernel/2015/Mar/msg00001.html
I imagine that launchd knows what you are looking for.
The Service Management framework has a method that might give you what you are looking for easily.
CFDictionaryRef SMJobCopyDictionary(CFStringRef domain, CFStringRef jobLabel); function.
We have a system where there are typically two processes running on the same system. One process handles the GUI and the other runs like a service (although for historical reasons, it's not a service, just an exe with no visible window).
The two processes undertake IPC mainly via registered messages asynchronously - i.e. we use RegisterWindowMessage() in both processes to define a large'ish set of messages that effectively form the API to the server process.
I have written a "hands-free" monitoring application that uses SetWindowsHookEx() to monitor and display the message queues of both processes and provide some level of decoding of the way the API is being utilised and how notifications are being propagated to the GUI process (each individual window can subscribe to notifications from the server directly).
So, there are a large number of messages in both directions so I have filtering and summary counts etc. so I can focus on particular activity. All this can be done without affecting the live code, which is good.
This all works well, but it now would be very useful to be able to "tag" a message originating in the GUI so I can trace the same message when it's processed by the server. This would be enormously useful for debugging and diagnosing system issues, but I can't find a clean way (actually I can't find any way!) of doing this without adding such support to our registered message API, which would be a lot of work and involves more risk than I'm comfortable with at the moment. It gets further complicated by the fact that the server pre-processes some messages and then does a PostMessage() back to itself to perform the action, so the originating message can get "lost".
Has anyone here tackled this type of problem? If so, can you give me some pointers? If not, then are there any documented or undocumented ways of adding a small block of data to a Windows message and retrieving it later? I've looked at SetMessageExtraInfo() but that seems to be per-queue rather than per-message.
FindWindow or FindWindowEx will give you the details of the GUI Window. Compare the details with message intercepted
I've spent a few weeks looking for a daemon that is capable of the following:
Handling arbitrary numbers of clients from other network hosts.
Allowing clients to register services under an identity.
Allowing other clients to make RPC calls to these registered services, with reliable error handling (if client registered for that service detaches, the daemon should report an error to the caller, not leave it hanging).
Allowing clients to register to receive events, which other clients can broadcast.
The simpler, the better.
The closest thing I've found in the F/LOSS world is D-Bus, which meets all of these criteria except the first: it cannot reliably work with remote connections. I have spent time looking into other options (ESB and MQ daemons -- spending the most time with 0MQ and RabbitMQ) and they all fall short in one way or another: ESBs tend to be extremely complicated with a high learning curve, and MQ daemons tend to provide half of the solution (routing) while leaving the other half (error recovery) extremely complicated, if not impossible.
I'm not looking for any fantastic routing capabilities beyond one client saying "I provide service 'foo'" and another client saying "I want to invoke method 'bar' on service 'foo'."
It seems like something like this would exist already, and I hesitate to roll my own.
The use case is that I will have many processes across many hosts. Each host will have a governor process/service that will provide control of the lifetimes of these processes from a control panel. The processes themselves will also be services, allowing for direct inquiry about status as well as reconfiguration requests from this panel. The trick is that processes will come and go, and so static configuration of endpoints isn't something I really want to bother with; I would rather have each process be responsible for telling a daemon "I'm service so-and-so" and then let the daemon do the inter-client routing.
The only piece I'm really missing to develop this system is something that can route RPC requests between all of these processes. Is there any such daemon out there, or is there some other model that would better fit my needs?
In KEXT, I am listening for file close via vnode or file scope listener. For certain (very few) files, I need to send file path to my system daemon which does some processing (this has to happen in daemon) and returns the result back to KEXT. The file close call needs to be blocked until I get response from daemon. Based on result I need to some operation in close call and return close call successfully. There is lot of discussion on KEXT communication related topic on the forum. But they are not conclusive and appears be very old (year 2002 around). This requirement can be handled by FtlSendMessage(...) Win32 API. I am looking for equivalent of that on Mac
Here is what I have looked at and want to summarize my understanding:
Mach message: Provides very good way of bidirectional communication using sender and reply ports with queueing mechansim. However, the mach message APIs (e.g. mach_msg, mach_port_allocate, bootstrap_look_up) don't appear to be KPIs. The mach API mach_msg_send_from_kernel can be used, but that alone will not help in bidirectional communication. Is my understanding right?
IOUserClient: This appears be more to do with communicating from User space to KEXT and then having some callbacks from KEXT. I did not find a way to initiate communication from KEXT to daemon and then wait for result from daemon. Am I missing something?
Sockets: This could be last option since I would have to implement entire bidirectional communication channel from KEXT to Daemon.
ioctl/sysctl: I don't know much about them. From what I have read, its not recommended option especially for bidirectional communication
RPC-Mig: Again I don't know much about them. Looks complicated from what I have seen. Not sure if this is recommended way.
KUNCUserNotification: This appears to be just providing notification to the user from KEXT. It does not meet my requirement.
Supported platform is (10.5 onwards). So looking at the requirement, can someone suggest and provide some pointers on this topic?
Thanks in advance.
The pattern I've used for that process is to have the user-space process initiate a socket connection to the KEXT; the KEXT creates a new thread to handle messages over that socket and sleeps the thread. When the KEXT detects an event it needs to respond to, it wakes the messaging thread and uses the existing socket to send data to the daemon. On receiving a response, control is passed back to the requesting thread to decide whether to veto the operation.
I don't know of any single resource that will describe that whole pattern completely, but the relevant KPIs are discussed in Mac OS X Internals (which seems old, but the KPIs haven't changed much since it was written) and OS X and iOS Kernel Programming (which I was a tech reviewer on).
For what it's worth, autofs uses what I assume you mean by "RPC-Mig", so it's not too complicated (MIG is used to describe the RPC calls, and the stub code it generates handles calling the appropriate Mach-message sending and receiving code; there are special options to generate kernel-mode stubs).
However, it doesn't need to do any lookups, as automountd (the user-mode daemon to which the autofs kext sends messages) has a "host special port" assigned to it. Doing the lookups to find an arbitrary service would be harder.
If you want to use the socket established with ctl_register() on the KExt side, then beware: The communication from kext to user space (via ctl_enqueuedata()) works OK. However opposite direction is buggy on 10.5.x and 10.6.x.
After about 70.000 or 80.000 send() calls with SOCK_DGRAM in the PF_SYSTEM domain complete net stack breaks with disastrous consequences for complete system (hard turning off is the only way out). This has been fixed in 10.7.0. I workaround by using setsockopt() in our project for the direction from user space to kext as we only send very small data (just to allow/disallow some operation).