I come from the world of web programming and usually the server sets a superglobal variable through the specified method (get, post, etc) that makes available the data a user inputs into a field. Another way is to use AJAX to register a callback method to an event that the AJAX XMLhttpRequest object will initiate once notified by the browser (I'm assuming...). So I guess my question would be if there is some sort of dispatch interface that a systems programmer's code must interact with vicariously to execute in response to user input or does the programmer control the "waiting" process directly? And if there is a dispatch is there a loop structure in an OS that waits for a particular event to occur?
I was prompted to ask this question here because I'm in a basic programming logic class and the professor won't answer such a "sophisticated" question as this one. My book gives a vague pseudocode example like:
//start
sentinel_val = 'stop';
get user_input;
while (user_input not equal to sentinel_val)
{
// do something.
get user_input;
}
//stop
This example leads me to believe 1) that if no input is received from the user the loop will continue to repeat the sequence "do something" with the old or no input until the new input magically appears and then it will repeat again with that or a null value. It seems the book has tried to use the example of priming and reading from a file to convey how a program would get data from event driven input, no?
I'm confused :(
At the lowest level, input to the computer is asynchronous-- it happens via "interrupts", which is basically something external to the CPU (a keyboard controller) sending a signal to the CPU that says "stop what you're doing and accept this data". (It's complex, but this is the general idea). So the CPU stops, grabs the keystroke, and puts it in a buffer to be read, and then continues doing what it was doing before the interrupt.
Very similar things happen with inbound network traffic, and the results of reading from a disk, etc.
At a higher level, it gets more dependent on the operating system or framework that you're using.
With keyboard input, there might be a process (application, basically) that is blocked, waiting for user input. That "block" doesn't mean the computer just sits there waiting, it lets other processes run instead. But when the keyboard result comes in, it will wake up the one who was waiting for it.
From the point of view of that waiting process, they called some function "get_next_character()" and that function returned with the character. Etc.
Frankly, how all this stuff ties together is super interesting and useful to understand. :)
An OS is driven by hardware event (called interrupt). An OS does not wait for an interrupt, instead, it execute a special instruction to put the CPU a nap in a loop. If a hardware event occurs, the corresponding interrupt will be invoked.
It seems the book has tried to use the example of priming and reading from a file
to convey how a program would get data from event driven input, no?
Yes that is what the book is doing. In fact... the unix operating system is built on the idea of abstracting all input and output of any device to look like this.
In reality most operating systems and hardware make use of interrupts that jump to what we can call a sub-routine to perform the low level data read and then return control back to the operating system.
Also on most systems many of the devices work independent of the rest of the operating system and present a high level API to the operating system. For example a keyboard port (or maybe a better example is a network card) on a computer process interrupts itself and then the keyboard driver presents the operating system with a different api. You can look at standards for devices to see what these are. If you want to know the api the keyboard port presents for example you could look at the source code for the keyboard driver in a linix distro.
A basic explanation based on my understanding...
Your get user_input pseudo function is often something like readLine. That means that the function will block until the data read contains a new line character.
Below this the OS will use interrupts (this means it's not dealing with the keyboard unessesarily, but only when required) to allow it to respond when it the user hits some keys. The keyboard interrupt will cause execution to jump to a special routine which will fill an input buffer with data from the keyboard. The OS will then allow the appropriate process - generally the active one - to use readLine functions to access this data.
There's a bunch more complexity in there but that's a simple view. If someone offers a better explanation I'll willingly bow to superior knowledge.
Related
I have an HID device that is somewhat unfortunately designed (the Griffin Powermate) in that as you turn it, the input value for the "Rotation Axis" HID element doesn't change unless the speed of rotation dramatically changes or unless the direction changes. It sends many HID reports (angular resolution appears to be about 4deg, in that I get ~90 reports per revolution - not great, but whatever...), but they all report the same value (generally -1 or 1 for CCW and CW respectively -- if you turn faster, it will report -2 & 2, and so on, but you have to turn much faster. As a result of this unfortunate behavior, I'm finding this thing largely useless.
It occurred to me that I might be able to write a background userspace app that seized the physical device and presented another, virtual device with some minor additions so as to cause an input value change for every report (like a wrap-around accumulator, which the HID spec has support for -- God only knows why Griffin didn't do this themselves.)
But I'm not seeing how one would go about creating the kernel side object for the virtual device from userspace, and I'm starting to think it might not be possible. I saw this question, and its indications are not good, but it's low on details.
Alternately, if there's a way for me to spoof reports on the existing device, I suppose that would do it as well, since I could set it back to zero immediately after it reports -1 or 1.
Any ideas?
First of all, you can simulate input events via Quartz Event Services but this might not suffice for your purposes, as that's mainly designed for simulating keyboard and mouse events.
Second, the HID driver family of the IOKit framework contains a user client on the (global) IOHIDResource service, called IOHIDResourceDeviceUserClient. It appears that this can spawn IOHIDUserDevice instances on command from user space. In particular, the userspace IOKitLib contains a IOHIDUserDeviceCreate function which seems to be supposed to be able to do this. The HID family source code even comes with a little demo of this which creates a virtual keyboard of sorts. Unfortunately, although I can get this to build, it fails on the IOHIDUserDeviceCreate call. (I can see in IORegistryExplorer that the IOHIDResourceDeviceUserClient instance is never created.) I've not investigated this further due to lack of time, but it seems worth pursuing if you need its functionality.
I made an example that writes into process memory using task_for_pid() and mach_vm_write().
task_for_pid(mach_task_self(), pid, &target_task);
mach_vm_write(target_task, address, '?', local_size);
Is there a way to block to access memory of the specific process from another processes like cheat engine on OS X.
How do I prevent another process from calling task_for_pid?
Not that many others come to mind except hooking.
In OS X, the calls to task_for_pid are regulated by taskgated. Basically, unless it's your task , or you're root (or, in older systems, member of procview group), you won't get that elusive task port. But if you are allowed, then you have the port, and can do basically anything you want.
Hooking won't help, since task_for_pid is a mach trap - people can call it directly using the system call interface. iOS has much tighter controls on it (thanks to AppleMobileFileIntegrity.kext). If you want to control the trap, effectively the only way of doing so is writing a small kext to do the trick for you.
On Unix: I’ve been through FAM and Gamin, and both seem to provide a client/server file monitoring system. I would rather have a system where I tell the kernel to monitor some inodes and it pokes me back when events occur. Inotify looked promising at first on that side: inotify_init1 let me pass IN_NONBLOCK which in turn caused poll() to return directly. However I understood that I would have to call it regularly if I wanted to have news about the monitored files. Now I’m a bit short of ideas.
Is there something to monitor files asynchronously?
PS: I haven’t looked on Windows yet, but I would love to have some answers about it too.
As Celada says in the comments above, inotify and poll are the right way to do this.
Signals are not a mechanism for reasonable asynchronous programming -- and signal handlers are remarkably dangerous for the inexperienced and even for the experienced. One does not use them for such purposes voluntarily.
Instead, one should structure one's program around an event loop (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_programming for an overall explanation) using poll, select, or some similar system call as the core of your program's event handling mechanism.
Alternatively, you can use threads, or threads plus an event loop.
However interesting are you answers, I am sorry but I can’t accept a mechanism based on blocking calls on poll or select, when the question states “asynchronously”, regardless of how deep it is hidden.
On the other hand, I found out that one could manage to run inotify asynchronously by passing to inotify_init1 the flag IN_NONBLOCK. Signals are not triggered as they would have with aio, and a read call that would block blocking would set errno to EWOULDBLOCK instead.
To clarify, I am wondering what are the cons and pros of writing a "multiple simultaneous clients to a single server" using TCP/IP sockets and signal handlers that are called in response to "can read / can write" signal conditions on client socket file descriptors? As far as I understand at least the Linux kernel uses signals to notify a process of conditions related to socket descriptors? Obviously one has to be careful in a signal handler, which, again as I understand, interrupts the process - reentrancy, atomicity, undefined state for variables, etc.
But one does not have to have signals do most work, in fact quite the opposite - add the socket to a set of sockets ready for reading, writing, much like select, poll and epoll_wait do, and let the default process code flow work with these sets? In effect, one emulates much the same pattern as with the functions mentioned, but purely principally, is it doable and how can it be worth it?
There is already a couple of such methods. One is using the SIGIO signal, check man 7 socket and look for the section named "Signals" for more information.
The other method is standardized by POSIX and called async I/O. The functions to use are all prefixed with aio_ (for example aio_read). See this link for an example on how to use this or check the manual page.
I am working on a program which is essentially single-threaded, and its only thread is the main event-loop thread. Consequently, all its data structures are basically not protected by anything like critical region.
Things work fine until it recently integrates some new functions based on DirectShow API. Some DirectShow APIs open a second event-loop and within that second loop it dispatch messages (i.e. invoke other event-handling callbacks unpredictably). So when a second event-handling function is invoked, it might damage the data struct which is being accessed by the function that invokes the DirectShow API.
I have some experience in kernel programming. And what comes in my mind is that, for a single-threaded program, how it should deal with its data structure is very like how kernel should deal with per-CPU data structure. And in kernel, when a function accesses per-CPU data, it must disable the interrupt (very like the message-dispatching in a second event-loop). However, I find there is no easy way to either avoid invoke DirectShow API or to prevent the create of a second event-loop within them, is there any way?
mutexes. semaphores. locking. whatever name you want to call it, that's what you need.
There are several possible solutions that come to mind, depending on exactly what's going wrong and your code:
Make sure your data structures are in a consistent state before calling any APIs that run a modal loop.
If that's not possible, you can use a simple boolean variable to protect the structure. If it's set, then simply abort any attempt to update it or queue the update for later. Another option is to abort the previous operation.
If the problem is user generated events, then disable the problematic menus or buttons while the operation is in progress. Alternatively, you could display a modal dialog.