I'm not sure about this being in 0.9.14, but if you're actually using SVN
HEAD, the attached patch might help (I think my 'early' response cleanup code
was a bit eager...).
Happy hacking.
-Christian
On Monday, September 19, 2011 01:24:14 PM Regis Louge wrote:
> You made yourself clear on that I removed all struct MHD_Connections in my
> structures and never use MHD_close_connection.
>
> I am running the program on Linux. I tested a lot of scenarios with 0.9.13,
> closed and reopened 20 connections with 2 different clients etc... and
> things work fine.
>
> Whereas with the 0.9.14 I followed the Segmentation fault in debug with
> Anjuta and as I told you it appears :
>
> int MHD_connection_handle_write (struct MHD_Connection *connection)
>
> |_switch (connection->state)
> |
> |_case MHD_CONNECTION_CHUNKED_BODY_READY:
> |_check_write_done (connection,
>
> (connection->response->total_size ==
> connection->response_write_position) ?
> MHD_CONNECTION_BODY_SENT :
> MHD_CONNECTION_CHUNKED_BODY_UNREADY);
>
> Valgrind says :
>
> ==24566== Thread 4:
> ==24566== Invalid read of size 8
> ==24566== at 0x4E33DD3: MHD_connection_handle_write (connection.c:1899)
> ==24566== by 0x4E36E78: MHD_handle_connection (daemon.c:624)
> ==24566== by 0x626CD8B: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==24566== by 0x5A9D04C: clone (clone.S:112)
> ==24566== Address 0x50 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Christian Grothoff
>
> <christ...@grothoff.org>wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:46:15 AM Regis Louge wrote:
> > > Christian,
> > >
> > > The purpose of the Web Server is to manage Services, as it is now it
> > > provides an interface for the clients for them to interact with those
> > > services, for example a performing a HTTP GET request on a Service will
> > > return its value and performing a HTTP PUT request will set this value
> > > to the given one. The Web Server can contain a lot of Services and
> > > have a
> >
> > lot
> >
> > > of clients.
> > >
> > > In addition to that, one of the feature that I want to add is to be
> > > able
> >
> > to
> >
> > > receive notifications on value changes of certain services. To do so,
> >
> > each
> >
> > > client should be able to perform a GET on the URI "/events" in order to
> > > engage the connection to these notifications. Then, whenever a Service
> > > changes value, the server checks if the client has subscribed to that
> > > service's notifications, and if so, it sends him a notification of the
> > > value change with the new value.
> > >
> > > For now on, this works well thanks to
> > > MHD_create_response_from_callback. All clients receive notifications
> > > of the services that they subscribed to etc...
> > >
> > > I have to admit that the choice of defining clients with IP addresses
> > > was not well thought,indeed I used IP address as unique identifiers
> > > for each client and didn't think of all the scenarios (even though the
> > > web server aims at being run in a Local Area Network) I remodeled the
> > > notifications part on the web server using Sessions, thank you for the
> > > advice !
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, the segmentation fault still appears when I close and
> >
> > reopen
> >
> > > another connection, MHD tells me that it is impossible to send data due
> >
> > to
> >
> > > a "Broken Pipe", and goes into the request_completed callback. (the
> > > same segmentation fault in my previous mail)
> > >
> > > I just downgraded my MHD to 0.9.13 and it works like a charm ! (tried
> >
> > with
> >
> > > 0.9.14 and SVN HEAD) Any idea why ?
> >
> > I doubt it is the different version, you might just have gotten lucky
> > (memory
> > corruption can cause non-deterministic bugs...). In any case, let me
> > again say that if your code still does (as you wrote earlier):
> >
> > if(client->connection != NULL)
> >
> > MHD_connection_close(client->connection,
> >
> > MHD_REQUEST_TERMINATED_WITH_ERROR);
> >
> > you will have problems. MHD_connection_close is not in microhttpd.h and
> > not an
> > exported symbol so client code must not use it or face the music (i.e.
> > crashes).
> >
> > As for 'broken pipe' -- did you ever read this?
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/s/libmicrohttpd/microhttpd.html#SIGPIPE
> >
> > If not, this might be your problem (even though it is not a SIGSEGV in
> > that case, but a SIGPIPE), unless you're on GNU/Linux. If this is not
> > the issue,
> > try using valgrind to find out more about your segfault...
> >
> > Happy hacking,
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Christian Grothoff
> > >
> > > <christ...@grothoff.org>wrote:
> > > > Eh, MHD_connection_close is NOT part of the public API for good
> >
> > reasons.
> >
> > > > You MUST not use it, the symbol is not even exported by the library.
> > > >
> > > > Getting segmentation faults from using it yourself is expected. Do
> > > > not do that.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I am getting more an more confused about what you're trying to
> >
> > do.
> >
> > > > Naturally you CAN get two connections from the same source IP address
> >
> > at
> >
> > > > the same time, and your server should support that (otherwise it is
> > > > simply broken). MHD has no problem handling more than one connection
> > > > per IP at a time either.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I currently can only conclude that you're trying to do something with
> >
> > IP
> >
> > > > addresses that you should manage with sessions/cookies and that your
> > > > application logic is most likely severely broken (based on not
> > > > understanding TCP/IP and/or HTTP) and thus you're trying to do these
> > > > strange things and come up with odd requirements like the 'instant'
> > > > cleanup on connection closure.
> > > >
> > > > TCP-FIN is not 'instant' and a browser may send us a TCP-SYN before
> > > > we get the FIN, right? Not to mention, what would your system do
> > > > with two users behind NAT using the same IP address?
> > > >
> > > > With SVN HEAD, MHD is now calling the response destroy handler (as
> > > > well as the 'connection completed' handlers) as soon as the OS tells
> > > > us that the connection is dead. More cannot be done, and mucking
> > > > around with MHD internals is not going to improve the situation.
> > > > Also, you should NEVER EVER store a 'struct MHD_Connection' in your
> > > > own data structures, that's virtually always a bug. Instead, store
> > > > a pointer to your data structures in the 'void**' you're provided by
> > > > MHD.
> > > >
> > > > Happy hacking!
> > > >
> > > > Christian
> > > >
> > > > On 09/15/2011 09:15 AM, Regis Louge wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I have updated my version to the 0.9.14 that contains this patch
> > > >> (without compilation error :) ). I managed to handle the
> > > >> disconnection reconnection of the client by storing the
> > > >> MHD_Connection in my
> >
> > structure
> >
> > > >> and closing it manually whenever a call on "/push" is made from the
> >
> > same
> >
> > > >> IP address and a previous connection was stored :
> > > >>
> > > >> if(client->connection != NULL)
> > > >> MHD_connection_close(client->**connection,
> > > >> MHD_REQUEST_TERMINATED_WITH_**ERROR);
> > > >> client->connection = connection;
> > > >>
> > > >> Now I encounter something really weird, indeed, if a client
> >
> > disconnects,
> >
> > > >> I can "send" him a push notification without anything happening on
> > > >> my web server, but when I "send" him a second one I have this weird
> > > >> segmentation fault in :
> > > >>
> > > >> int MHD_connection_handle_write (struct MHD_Connection *connection)
> > > >>
> > > >> |_switch (connection->state)
> > > >> |
> > > >> |_case MHD_CONNECTION_CHUNKED_BODY_**READY:
> > > >> |_check_write_done (connection,
> > > >> |
> > > >> (connection->response->total_**size ==
> > > >>
> > > >> connection->response_write_**position)
> > > >> ?
> > > >>
> > > >> MHD_CONNECTION_BODY_SENT :
> > > >> MHD_CONNECTION_CHUNKED_BODY_**UNREADY);
> > > >>
> > > >> It is right after the connection closes so connection->state is
> >
> > supposed
> >
> > > >> to be MHD_CONNECTION_CLOSED ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Any idea what that would happen ? And why does the first push
> > > >> notification attempt don't fail ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks a lot
Index: connection.c
===================================================================
--- connection.c (revision 16953)
+++ connection.c (working copy)
@@ -311,11 +311,6 @@
&connection->client_context,
termination_code);
connection->client_aware = MHD_NO;
- if (connection->response != NULL)
- {
- MHD_destroy_response (connection->response);
- connection->response = NULL;
- }
}
@@ -2291,6 +2286,11 @@
}
continue;
case MHD_CONNECTION_CLOSED:
+ if (connection->response != NULL)
+ {
+ MHD_destroy_response (connection->response);
+ connection->response = NULL;
+ }
daemon = connection->daemon;
if (0 != pthread_mutex_lock(&daemon->cleanup_connection_mutex))
{
