I have an application that is hosting some unstable third-party code which I can't control in an external process to protect my main application from nasty errors it exhibits. My parent process is monitoring the other process and doing "the right thing (tm)" when it fails.
The problem that I have is that Dr. Watson is still detecting crashes in the isolated process and attaching to the processes on the way down to take a crash dump. This has the two problems of:
1. Dramatically slowing down the time that it takes for me to detect a failure because the process stays alive while the crash dump is being taken.
2. Showing annoying popups to the user asking if they want to submit the error reports to Microsoft.
Clearly I would prefer to fix the bugs in the child process, but given that it isn't an option, I would like to be able to selectively disable Dr. Watson (and Windows Error Reporting in Vista+) for that process.
I am running some of my own code in the process before handing off to the untrusted bit, so if there is an API that I can call that affects the current process that would be fine.
I am aware of: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/188296 which would disable Dr. Watson for the entire machine. I don't want to do that because it would make me a bad citizen to trash a machine-wide setting.
I am also aware of the WerSetFlags option in Vista+ that would seem to disable windows error reporting for the current process, but I need something that will disable Dr.Watson on earlier OS versions.
The good doctor is invoked when a process does not handle a certain exception. Therefore, the common way to go would be to handle all exceptions yourself. In your case, it is much harder since you don't own the crashing process code. What you can do then, is to inject your code into the other process at runtime, and install an exception handler that will swallow the exception causing the crash. When caught, gracefully shut down the process.
There are quite a few questions here talking about injecting code into another process. As for the crash handler, you can either set an unhandled exception filter, or add a vectored exception handler. Note that for the latter, you'll have to be careful not to swallow legit exceptions that are in fact handled inside the other process, namely find a way to recognize the crashing exception and make sure it is the only one you handle.
You want to disable the GPF popup: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/07/27/198410.aspx
Related
I am performing system tests on a SAP system. From time to time, SAP crashes and I'd like to recover from those crashes by resetting the virtual machine to a previously saved state.
My problem is that I cannot detect such crashes reliably. I have created WER LocalDumps registry entries, but I don't get dumps.
It seems SAP has registered an unhandled exception handler and performs different tasks on different types of exceptions. Sometimes it shows a message box and terminates the application (e.g. in case of compression errors), sometimes it goes with a so-called Short Dump.
I am neither interested in the message box, nor in the short dump, so I am looking for a way to disable the unhandled exception handler of SAP. This should bring up WER, which writes the dump file and I can take actions to restart my system tests.
For performance reasons, I'd not like to restart the VM on every test.
I have tried:
I am basically familiar with unhandled exception handlers. I have applied them to my own .NET code successfully.
I looked at SetUnhandledExceptionFilter (MSDN) and similar but it applies to the calling process only and I cannot modify the code of SAP.
I read about DisableUserModeCallbackFilter but I don't think it is helpful for my case
I wonder whether there is a Registry Setting (e.g. in ImageFileExecutionOptions) or a Shim that I could activate.
According to Hans Passant's comment (which I take as an authorative answer),
There is no boss override switch built into the operating system to stop it from doing this.
I finally attached the debugger to SAP GUI at a time where the process was alive. Starting with all exceptions enabled, I narrowed down the conditions so that WinDbg would break when SAP GUI crashed (first chance, then second chance).
whenever i try to run program for example,
if i have to run "frmphonebook" so in
Application.Run(new frmphonebook());
I typed but when i run it it run another form, and it happens to each and every form and it is displaying output as
The thread 'vshost.RunParkingWindow' (0x63c) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
The thread '<No Name>' (0xb24) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
how to solve this ?
You can give your threads a name it would also help you in your debugging...
But in many apps threads are created implicitly and you have no control over the name.
So that is not an error message. Code 0 means everything went according to plan. Any non-zero code usually indicates an error.
edit: You can also disable the display of these messages, when debugging, do right click on output, and choose what do you want see.
If a thread has exited with code 0 it ran successfully. On Codeproject is a Beginners-Guide-to-Threading
This article on threading might also be helpfull. This question on so could also be of use. A list of System Error Codes
One of the things you will learn about using the Debugger is that you will see what we might call "the soft white underbelly" (an allusion to alligators' anatomy) of the system: all kinds of DLLs being loaded and unloaded, the somewhat complex arrangement of "helper" threads being started and stopped... etc.
It can be distracting to a less experienced user, to see all of these messages. However, over time, you will come to understand that the Debugger is simply being truthful and verbose. The details it is displaying for you might not really be relevant to your debugging process, but it cannot "know" that; it is only displaying factual information, and you have to sort out what is relevant and what is not.
As for Windows Forms applications, I have myself noticed that there seem to be several "helper" threads, typically with no name, or (as is frequently seen by me when debugging), they are named things like "vshost.RunParkingWindow". Typically, you have to trust that the system is creating threads on your behalf, in addition to any threads you might create yourself. As others have suggested, give your own threads meaningful names so you can tell them apart from the system's threads.
You can get further insight into the multithreaded structure of your Windows Forms app by putting a breakpoint somewhere in your UI update code, and when it hits, use Debug/Windows/Threads to bring up a view of all the threads running in your process space. You'll be quite surprised, I think, by how many there are! Try creating and .Show()-ing several forms in your app, one by one. I think you'll see that each .Show() operation creates a new window, and with it, several supporting threads for that window.
You may also see messages in the debug window such as the following: "A first chance exception of type 'System.ObjectDisposedException' occurred in System.Windows.Forms.dll". Many times there are system exception handlers that perform a reasonable default action on your behalf. This message appearing without a break in the debugger indicates that some default handler took care of this exception for you.
The system support for something like a Windows forms application is somewhat complicated, to make YOUR implementation easier and simpler. When you run the debugger, you get to see some of these details. Over time, you will learn what is "usual" and what is indicative of a problem.
Check to see if there are some files in your web app that have been rendered inaccessible. For my case my chart control created a text file which was read only and it threw an exception. Deleted the file and the folders and voila
i found your solution i think....i the visual studio go to project >properties >linker >system look for the Subsystem line and click the down arrow and change to Console(....words....).
it worked for me !! ENJOY"
I've got a program that calls SetClipboardViewer at startup to register for clipboard change notifications. At shutdown time, it will call ChangeClipboardChain to remove itself from the chain correctly.
This is all great as long as the program runs normally. But that's got me wondering, what happens if the program gets aborted, either by me killing it under the debugger, by a crash, or by the user killing the process because something went wrong? Then the cleanup never happens. Can that cause trouble for the system somehow?
Specifically, I know Windows can remove my viewer without trouble because it's a handle and Windows can clean up all handles when a process terminates, but will this cause the next value downstream in the chain, that I was holding a reference to, to get lost somehow?
Yes, failure to remove yourself from the chain will break the chain. Deadly sin #2. Please read the whole list to be sure that you're following all of the rules.
http://www.clipboardextender.com/developing-clipboard-aware-programs-for-windows/6
Lots of apps suffer from this, including the Delphi IDE. i.e. if Delphi crashes in certain ways, it'll kill the clipboard chain (D2005 anyway).
Consider using Vista style notification on Vista/Windows7.
I have an application that sometimes causes an access violation on exit. This is quite unpredictable and all attempts to locate the bug have been unsuccesful so far. The bug is harmless, as no data is lost, so I was thinking if it might be possible to just hide it.
Is it possible to have another app launch the buggy one and catch the Access Violation exception if it occurs? If yes, how?
Thanks in advance!
Yes, if the other application is a debugger. This is a non-trivial amount of work, To become a debugger, you create the process with DEBUG_PROCESS | DEBUG_ONLY_THIS_PROCESS flag, see CreateProcess flags for more information.
Once you are the debugger of the process, you will get first chance to handle all exceptions.
You could also attach to the process as a debugger just before it shuts down (assuming that you know when this is going to happen) with DebugActiveProcess
Call SetErrorMode(SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX) before launching the buggy application as a child process.
The error mode is inherited to child processes and this particular flag will prevent the crash dialog from appearing.
How to reload a crashed process on Windows? Of course, I can run a custom monitoring Win service process. But, for example, Firefox: it doesn't seem to install such a thing, but still it can restart itself when it crashes.
On Vista and above, you can use the RegisterApplicationRestart API to automatically restart when it crashes or hangs.
Before Vista, you need to have a top level exception filter which will do the restart, but be aware that running code inside of a compromised process isn't entirely secure or reliable.
Firefox constantly saves its state to the hard disk, every time you open a tab or click a link, or perform some other action. It also saves a flag saying it shut down safely.
On startup, it reads this all back, and is able to "restore" based on that info.
Structured exception handling (SEH) allows you to catch program crashes and to do something when it happens.
See: __try and __except
SEH can be very dangerous though and could lead to your program hanging instead. Please see this article for more information.
If you write your program as an NT service then you can set the first, second and subsequent failure actions to "Restart the service".
For Windows 2008 server and Windows Vista and Windows 7 you can use the Win32 API RegisterApplicationRestart
Please see my answer here for more information about dealing with different types of program crashes.
If I recall correctly Windows implements at least some subset of POSIX and so "must" have the signal interface (things like SIGKILL, SIGSEGV, SIGQUIT etc.).
I've never done this but on linux, but you could try setting the unexpected termination trap with signal() (signal.h).
From quick scan of docs it seems that very few things can be done while handling signal, it may be possible that even starting a new process is on forbidden list.
Now that I've thought about it, I'd probably go with master/worker pattern, very simple parent thread that does nothing but spawns the worker (that does all the UI / other things). If it does not set a specific "I'm gonna die now" bit but still dies (parent process always gets message / notification that spawned process died) then master respawns the worker. The main theme is keep master very simple and hard to die due to own bugs.