What's the deal with catching exceptions? - ios

So I've read a lot about catching exceptions. Let's talk about this and iOS together. I've used it with Google Analytics to submit information about the crash and using that to fix bugs.
But this raises a question. Can catching these exceptions help prevent apps from crashing. Can you theoretically prevent that bit of code from crashing the app and keep the app open. Now I get the fact that it would probably be impossible to do if there was no memory to be used but it would still be nice to know about.
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid questions and I really should read more about it and do some more research. Any information would be helpful.
I do have a fairly decent knowledge of iOS obj-c for my age and am willing to look into what you have to say.
Thanks!

Exceptions on iOS should never be caught; they are fatal for a reason. Unlike most languages that have a rich exception hierarchy and multiple means of throwing/catching exceptions for the benefit of the program as a whole, Cocoa-Touch code is built around the principle that all exceptions are fatal. It is a mistake to think that you can catch an exception thrown through any frames of Apple-provided code and have your process continue unhindered. It is an even more grave mistake to catch and rethrow the exception for the purpose of logging.
The exceptions thrown by Cocoa-Touch indicate serious errors in program logic, or undefined and unresolvable state in an object. It is not OK to ignore them, or log them after catching them. They must be fixed and prevented from being thrown in the first place in order to truly guarantee your process remains stable.

Related

Intercepting crashes on iOS

Description
I would like to catch all exceptions that are occurring in iOS app and log them to file and eventually send them to back-end server used by the app.
I've been reading about this topic and found usage of signals sent by device and handling them, but I'm not sure if it's gonna break App Store Review guidelines or it may introduce additional issues.
I've added following to AppDelegate:
NSSetUncaughtExceptionHandler { (exception) in
log.error(exception)
}
signal(SIGABRT) { s in
log.error(Thread.callStackSymbols.prettified())
exit(s)
}
signal(SIGILL) { s in
log.error(Thread.callStackSymbols.prettified())
exit(s)
}
signal(SIGSEGV) { s in
log.error(Thread.callStackSymbols.prettified())
exit(s)
}
Questions
Is this good approach, any other way?
Will it break App Store Review guidelines because of usage of exit()
Is it better to use kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) instead of exit()?
Resources
https://github.com/zixun/CrashEye/blob/master/CrashEye/Classes/CrashEye.swift
https://www.plcrashreporter.org/
https://chaosinmotion.blog/2009/12/02/a-useful-little-chunk-of-iphone-code/
former Crashlytics iOS SDK maintainer here.
The code you've written above does have a number of technical issues.
The first is there are actually very few functions that are defined as safe to invoke inside a signal handler. man sigaction lists them. The code you've written is not signal-safe and will deadlock from time to time. It all will depend on what the crashed thread is doing at the time.
The second is you are attempting to just exit the program after your handler. You have to keep in mind that signals/exception handlers are process-wide resources, and you might not be the only one using them. You have to save pre-existing handlers and then restore them after handling. Otherwise, you can negatively affect other systems the app might be using. As you've currently written this, even Apple's own crash reporter will not be invoked. But, perhaps you want this behavior.
Third, you aren't capturing all threads stacks. This is critical information for a crash report, but adds a lot of complexity.
Fourth, signals actually aren't the lowest level error system. Not to be confused with run time exceptions (ie NSException) mach exceptions are the underlying mechanism used to implement signals on iOS. They are a much more robust system, but are also far more complex. Signals have a bunch of pitfalls and limitations that mach exceptions get around.
These are just the issues that come to me off the top of my head. Crash reporting is tricky business. But, I don't want you to think it's magic, of course it's not. You can build a system that works.
One thing I do want to point out, is that crash reporters give you no feedback on failure. So, you might build something that works 25% of the time, and because you are only seeing valid reports, you think "hey, this works great!". Crashlytics had to put in effort over many years to identify the causes of failure and try to mitigate them. If this is all interesting to you, you can check out a talk I did about the Crashlytics system.
Update:
So, what would happen if you ship this code? Well, sometimes you'll get useful reports. Sometimes, your crash handling code will itself crash, which will cause an infinite loop. Sometimes your code will deadlock, and effectively hang your app.
Apple has made exit public API (for better or worse), so you are absolutely within the rules to use it.
I would recommend continuing down this road for learning purposes only. If you have a real app that you care about, I think it would be more responsible to integrate an existing open-source reporting system and point it to a backend server that you control. No 3rd parties, but also no need to worry about doing more harm than good.
Conclusion
It is possible to create custom crash reporter but it is definitely not recommended because there is a lot going on in background that could be easily forgotten and can introduce a lot of undefined behaviors. Even usage of third party frameworks can be troublesome but it is generally better way to go.
Thanks to everyone for providing information regarding this topic.
Answers to questions
Is this good approach, any other way?
Approach I mentioned in original question will have influence on Apple's own crash reporter and it introduces undefined behavior because of bad handling of signals. UNIX signals are not covering every error and API handling work with async signal safe functions. Mach exception handling which is used by Apple's crash reporter is better option but it is more complex.
Will usage of exit() break Apple App Store review?
No. Usage of exit() is more related to the normal operation of app. If app is crashing anyway, calling exit() isn't problem.
Is it better to use kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) instead of exit()?
Quote from Eskimo:
You must not call exit. There’s two problems with doing that:
exit is not async signal safe. In fact, exit can run arbitrary code
via handlers registered with atexit. If you want to exit the process,
call _exit.
Exiting the process is a bad idea anyway, because it will either
prevent the Apple crash reporter from running or cause it to log
incorrect state (the state of your signal handler rather than the
state of the crashed thread).
A better solution is to unregister your signal handler (set it to
SIG_DFL) and then return
Additional details (full context)
Since I cross posted this questions to Apple's official support forum and got really long and descriptive answer from well known Eskimo I would like to share it with anyone who decides to go same path as I did and starts researching this approach.
Quote from Eskimo
Before we start I’d like you to take look at my shiny new Implementing
Your Own Crash Reporter post. I’ve been meaning to write this up for
a while, and your question has give me a good excuse to allocate the
time.
You wrote:
I've got a requirement to catch all exceptions that are occuring in
iOS app and log them to file and eventually send them to back-end
server used by the app.
I strongly recommend against doing this. My Implementing Your Own
Crash Reporter post explains why this is so hard. It also has some
suggestions for how to avoid problems, but ultimately there’s no way
to implement a third-party crash reporter that’s reliable, binary
compatible, and sufficient to debug complex problems
With that out of the way, let’s look at your specific questions:
Is this good approach at all?
No. The issue is that your minimalist crash reporter will disrupt the
behaviour of the Apple crash reporter. The above-mentioned post
discusses this problem in gory detail.
Will it break App Store Review guidelines because of usage of exit()?
No. iOS’s prohibition against calling exit is all about the normal
operation of your app. If your app is crashing anyway, calling exit
isn’t a problem.
However, calling exit will exacerbate the problem I covered in the
previous point.
Is it better to use kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) instead?
That won’t improve things substantially.
callStackSymbols are not symbolicated, is there a way to symbolicate
callStackSymbols?
No. On-device symbolication is extremely tricky and should be
avoided. Again, I go into this in detail in the post referenced
above.
Share and Enjoy
Since links can break I will also quote post.
Implementing Your Own Crash Reporter
I often get questions about third-party crash reporting. These
usually show up in one of two contexts:
Folks are trying to implement their own crash reporter.
Folks have implemented their own crash reporter and are trying to debug a problem based on the report it generated.
This is a complex issue and this post is my attempt to untangle some
of that complexity.
If you have a follow-up question about anything I've raised here,
please start a new thread in .
IMPORTANT All of the following is my own direct experience. None of it should be considered official DTS policy. If you have questions
that need an official answer (perhaps you’re trying to convince your
boss that implementing your own crash reporter is a very bad idea :-),
you should open a DTS tech support
incident and we can
discuss things there.
Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” Apple Developer Relations,
Developer Technical Support, Core OS/Hardware let myEmail = "eskimo"
+ "1" + "#apple.com"
Scope
First, I can only speak to the technical side of this issue. There
are other aspects that are beyond my remit:
I don’t work for App Review, and only they can give definitive answers about what will or won’t be allowed on the store.
Doing your own crash reporter has significant privacy implications.
IMPORTANT If you implement your own crash reporter, discuss the privacy impact with a lawyer.
This post assumes that you are implementing your own crash reporter.
A lot of folks use a crash reporter from another third party. From my
perspective these are the same thing. If you use a custom crash
reporter, you are responsible for its behaviour, both good and bad,
regardless of where the actual code came from.
Note If you use a crash reporter from another third party, run the tests outlined in Preserve the Apple Crash Report to verify that
it’s working well.
General Advice
I strongly advise against implementing your own crash reporter. It’s very easy to implement a basic crash reporter that works well
enough to debug simple problems. It’s impossible to create a good
crash reporter, one that’s reliable, binary compatible, and sufficient
to debug complex problems.
“Impossible?”, I hear you ask, “That’s a very strong word for Quinn to
use. He’s usually a lot more circumspect.” And yes, that’s true, I
usually am more circumspect, but in this case I’m extremely
confident of this conclusion.
There are two fundamental problems with implementing your own crash
reporter:
On iOS (and the other iOS-based platforms, watchOS and tvOS) your crash reporter must run inside the crashed process. That means it can
never be 100% reliable. If the process is crashing then, by
definition, it’s in an undefined state. Attempting to do real work in
that state is just asking for problems 1.
To get good results your crash reporter must be intimately tied to system implementation details. These can change from release to
release, which invalidates the assumptions made by your crash
reporter. This isn’t a problem for the Apple crash reporter because
it ships with the system. However, a crash reporter that’s built in
to your product is always going to be brittle.
I’m speaking from hard-won experience here. I worked for DTS during
the PowerPC-to-Intel transition, and saw a lot of folks with custom
crash reporters struggle through that process.
Still, this post exists because lots of folks ignore my general
advice, so the subsequent sections contain advice about specific
technical issues.
WARNING Do not interpret any of the following as encouragement to implement your own crash reporter. I strongly advise against that.
However, if you ignore my advice then you should at least try to
minimise the risk, which is what the rest of this document is about.
1 On macOS it’s possible for your crash reporter to run out of
process, just like the Apple crash reporter. However, that presents
its own problems: When running out of process you can’t access various
bits of critical state for the crashed process without being tightly
bound to implementation details that are not considered API.
Preserve the Apple Crash Report
You must ensure that your crash reporter doesn’t disrupt the Apple
crash reporter. Some fraction of your crashes will not be caused by
your code but by problems in framework code, and a poorly written
crash reporter will disrupt the Apple crash reporter and make it
harder to diagnose those issues.
Additionally, when dealing with really hard-to-debug problems, you
really need the more obscure info that’s shown in the Apple crash
report. If you disrupt that info, you end up making the hard problems
harder.
To avoid these issues I recommend that you test your crash reporter’s
impact on the Apple crash reporter. The basic idea is:
Create a program that generates a set of specific crashes.
Run through each crash.
Verify that your crash reporter produces sensible results.
Verify that the Apple crash reporter also produces sensible results.
With regards step 1, your test suite should include:
An un-handled language exception thrown by your code
An un-handled language exception thrown by the OS (accessing an NSArray out of bounds is an easy way to get this)
A memory access exception
An illegal instruction exception
A breakpoint exception
Make sure to test all of these cases on both the main thread and a
secondary thread.
With regards step 4, check that the resulting Apple crash report
includes correct values for:
The exception info
The crashed thread
That thread’s state
Any application-specific info, and especially the last exception backtrace
Signals
Many third-party crash reporters use UNIX signals to catch the crash.
This is a shame because using Mach exception handling, the mechanism
used by the Apple crash reporter, is generally a better option.
However, there are two reasons to favour UNIX signals over Mach
exception handling:
On iOS-based platforms your crash reporter must run in-process, and doing in-process Mach exception handling is not feasible.
Folks are a lot more familiar with UNIX signals. Mach exception handling, and Mach messaging in general, is pretty darned obscure.
If you use UNIX signals for your crash reporter, be aware that this
API has some gaping pitfalls. First and foremost, your signal handler
can only use async signal safe functions 1. You can find a list
of these functions in the sigaction man
page
2.
WARNING This list does not include malloc. This means that a crash reporter’s signal handler cannot use Objective-C or Swift, as
there’s no way to constrain how those language runtimes allocate
memory. That means you’re stuck with C or C++, but even there you
have to be careful to comply with this constraint.
The Operative: It’s worse than you know.
Many crash reports use functions like backtrace (see its man
page)
to get a backtrace from their signal handler. There’s two problems
with this:
backtrace is not an async signal safe function.
backtrace uses a naïve algorithm that doesn’t deal well with cross signal handler stack frames [3].
The latter example is particularly worrying, because it hides the
identity of the stack frame that triggered the signal.
If you’re going to backtrace out of a signal, you must use the crashed
thread’s state (accessible via the handlers uapparameter) to start
your backtrace.
Apropos that, if your crash reporter wants to log the state of the
crashed thread, that’s the place to get it.
Finally, there’s the question of how to exit from your signal handler.
You must not call exit. There’s two problems with doing that:
exit is not async signal safe. In fact, exit can run arbitrary code via handlers registered with atexit. If you want to exit the
process, call _exit.
Exiting the process is a bad idea anyway, because it will either prevent the Apple crash reporter from running or cause it to log
incorrect state (the state of your signal handler rather than the
state of the crashed thread).
A better solution is to unregister your signal handler (set it to
SIG_DFL) and then return. This will cause the crashed process to
continue execution, crash again, and generate a crash report via the
Apple crash reporter.
1 While the common signals caught by a crash reporter are not
technically async signals (except SIGABRT), you still have to treat
them as async signals because they can occur on any thread at any
time.
2 It’s reasonable to extend this list to other routines that are
implemented as thin shims on a system call. For example, I have no
qualms about calling vm_read (see below) from a signal handler.
[3] Cross signal handler stack frames are pushed on to the stack by
the kernel when it runs a signal handler on a thread. As there’s no
API to learn about the structure of these frames, there’s no way to
backtrace across one of these frames in isolation. I’m happy to go
into details but it’s really not relevant to this discussion. If
you’re interested, start a new thread in and we can chat there.
Reading Memory
A signal handler must be very careful about the memory it touches,
because the contents of that memory might have been corrupted by the
crash that triggered the signal. My general rule here is that the
signal handler can safely access:
Its code
Its stack
Its arguments
Immutable global state
In the last point, I’m using immutable to mean immutable after
startup. I think it’s reasonable to set up some global state when
the process starts, before installing your signal handler, and then
rely on it in your signal handler.
Changing any global state after the signal handler is installed is
dangerous, and if you need to do that you must be careful to ensure
that your signal handler sees a consistent state, even though a crash
might occur halfway through your change.
Note that you can’t protect this global state with a mutex because
mutexes are not async signal safe (and even if they were you’d
deadlock if the mutex was held by the thread that crashed). You
should be able to use atomic operations for this, but atomic
operations are notoriously hard to use correctly (if I had a dollar
for every time I’ve pointed out to a developer they’re using atomic
operations incorrectly, I’d be very badly paid (-: but that’s still a
lot of developers!).
If your signal handler reads other memory, it must take care to avoid
crashing while doing that read. There’s no BSD-level API for this
1, so I recommend that you use vm_read.
1 The traditional UNIX approach for doing this is to install a
signal handler to catch any memory exceptions triggered by the read,
but now we’re talking signal handling within a signal handler and
that’s just silly.
Writing Files
If your want to write a crash report from your signal handler, you
must use low-level UNIX APIs (open, write, close) because only
those low-level APIs are documented to be async signal safe. You must
also set up the path in advance because the standard APIs for
determining where to write the file (NSFileManager, for example) are
not async signal safe.
Offline Symbolication
Do not attempt to do symbolication from your signal handler. Rather,
write enough information to your crash report to support offline
symbolication. Specifically:
The addresses to symbolicate
For each Mach-O image in the process:
The image path
The image UUID
The image load address
You can get most of the Mach-O image information using the APIs in
<mach-o/dyld.h> 1. Be aware, however, that these APIs are not
async signal safe. You’ll need to get this information in advance and
cache it for your signal handler to record.
This is complicated by the fact that the list of Mach-O images can
change as you process loads and unloads code. This requires you to
share mutable state with your signal handler, which is exactly what I
recommend against in Reading Memory.
Note You can learn about images loading and unloading using _dyld_register_func_for_add_image
and_dyld_register_func_for_remove_image respectively.
1 I believe you’ll need to parse the Mach-O load commands to get the
image UUID.

How to set a new handler/responder for EXC_BAD_ACCESS crashes

I am looking for ways to override the responder/handler for EXC_BAD_ACCESS. This is how I've set the handler for signal crashes or NSException which works fine:
NSSetUncaughtExceptionHandler(newExceptionHandler)
signal(SIGABRT, newSignalHandler)
signal(SIGILL, newSignalHandler)
I tried this but this is not getting called:
signal(EXC_BAD_ACCESS, newSignalHandler)
Any idea?
As Carl mentions, intercepting crashing events on iOS (and macOS) is fraught with peril for variety of reasons. I was the Crashlytics SDK maintainer for a while, and I would recommend strongly against doing it.
But, it definitely is possible.
One thing that seems to trip people up a lot is the relationship between signals, exceptions (ObjC or C++), and mach exceptions. These are all very different things.
On iOS (and tvOS, macOS) the events that terminate a process are mach exceptions. These are the low-level events that you can, in fact, intercept. When you see that EXC_ prefix, you know you're looking at a mach exception. I believe these are all defined in mach/exception.h.
Now, iOS has an interesting implementation where if there are no mach exception handlers, the OS translates the event into a unix signal. The signal function can be used to intercept these. Since EXC_BAD_ACCESS is not a unix signal, it is not a valid argument to the signal function. But, you can add handlers to those signals listed, and they will give you roughly the same information.
Mach exceptions are a significantly more powerful and safer mechanism for intercepting these kinds of events. Unfortunately, they also require a dramatically more complex handling system. Signals have all kinds of problems, but they are a lot easier to use.
I would be interested to know what you're trying to do, in case perhaps there's a better way of achieving what you are after.
Again, I'd avoid going down this road. It just isn't worth your time. It is challenging to get things working at all, and when you do, you'll be lulled into a false sense of security. You might even think things are working right, because the times your code goes completely wrong, you'll never know and you'll just get weird reports from users of random hangs from time to time.
If you are not using an existing crash reporter (they are very hard to write on your own, when dealing with corrupted memory and the like), you might look to their sources to see which signals they are handling. For example, PLCrashReporter's PLCrashReporter.m hooks onto SIGABRT, SIGBUS, SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGSEGV, and SIGTRAP, which seems to be the usual list for crash handlers. EXC_BAD_ACCESS should turn into either SIGBUS or SIGSEGV. Writing re-entrant code correctly in signal handlers is extremely difficult (can't use any ObjC or really most C APIs in there), so be careful -- though I guess if you are already crashing, can't do much more harm. But the more careful you are, the more exceptions you will handle without crashing further.

Exception breakpoints in xcode for iOS, is exceptions excusable?

Am new to the iOS development. While looking into one of the App I work on, with exception breakpoint enabled in xcode. I see so many repetitive exceptions been raised.
But till now, we never realised this, as iOS was excusing those exceptions. The main exception was happening in our service layer, where, in an XML parsing, one of the element mentioned as key was missing. since so many back end requests are fired, for every XML response, and for multiple items inside it, this exception is thrown.
Now that our app is published, will this impact the device's stability? We are planning to fix thee kind of issues. But now, Will these be logged into Apple's diagnostic information. Just curious to know these. Can someone shed some light over it?
In Objective-C, Exceptions are used to signal fatal errors, that is programmer errors and "unexpected" and unrecoverable runtime errors. In Objective-C, Exceptions are a debugging and testing aid, not a construct to control program flow or to regain control after an error.
Usually, an application in a release state shouldn't throw exceptions. If it happens anyway, the only correct course of action is to terminate the program as soon as possible. In general, the Objective-C system frameworks are not exception safe. This means, after an exception has been thrown the application's state will be corrupt. If your program continues, even worse things may happen.
There are only a few, always undocumented harmless cases where exceptions will be thrown and caught by system libraries without leaving the program in an unstable condition.
See also https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/cocoa/conceptual/Exceptions/Exceptions.html

Is fast enumeration exception-safe in files compiled with -fobjc-arc-exceptions?

I'm considering using exceptions for internal error handling inside a library I'm writing. If they are used, the library will be built with arc and f-objc-arc-exceptions enabled.
One issue with obj-c exceptions is that care must be taken not to throw through any code you don't know to be exception-safe. When a file is compiled with -fobjc-arc-exceptions, is the enumeration code added in by the compiler exception safe?
As far as I can tell, it should be, because I can't see any reason for it to do anything that requires cleanup. But I'd be much happier using it if this behaviour is documented somewhere.
Edit: I should clarify that when I say "using exceptions for internal error handling", I'm talking about nonfatal errors. So "exception-safe" here means that there should be no memory leaked, no unreleased locks, etc.
Do not use exceptions for internal error handling.
At best, you'll end up with code that has a different design and feel than the system code. The border between the two will always require maintenance and consideration in that it adds a "which side of the exception behavior fence am I on?"
In reality, it will be a maintenance nightmare. Every time the code is refactored -- potentially to take advantage of new features in the system -- you'll constantly have to maintain the border between the two kinds of exception handling.
At worse, there will be a software update that changes an implementation detail and your app will start crashing.
The libraries were designed to not used exceptions for recoverable errors. Your code should follow the same pattern if you want to minimize the cost of ownership of that code.
There are a couple of libraries on the system that have used exceptions internally for recoverable errors. They are a constant source of bugs and maintenance headaches.
To answer your specific question, No, this is never safe:
#try {
for ( id x in array ) { ... do something that might #throw ... }
} #finally {
...
}
When you #throw out of fast enumeration, your are throwing through a frame of Apple code and the behavior is documented as undefined. In practice, such a simple pattern is likely going to work just fine, but "works by coincidence" has a significant maintenance cost.

handling ObjC exceptions in monotouch

Sometimes I'm getting exception from inside objective-c code. in my example these exceptions are not critical and I want the app to keep working.
The question is how do I handle these exceptions?
for example, my app crashes time to time while I'm using GeoCoder class. I don't really care if geocoder failed to geocode location and would like to keep my app alive. including geocoder calls in try-catch blocks doesn't solve the problem.
Any help will be appreciated!
MonoTouch tries to a certain extent to convert ObjC exceptions into managed exceptions. This is done by adding an unhandled exception handler for ObjC exceptions, and in there throw a managed exception. This works on secondary threads, but not on the main thread, because iOS has a try-catch handler in its main run loop, which will kill your app if any exceptions reaches it (in other words the exception is handled, so it will never reach MonoTouch' unhandled exception handler).
The best way is to avoid the ObjC exceptions in the first place (Apple's documentation states that ObjC exceptions should only be used for truly exceptional circumstances, since they have a number of problems - memory leaks is quite common for instance).
It is obviously not possible to avoid all ObjC exceptions, so we try to find workarounds for those cases where it still happens. The best way to get this done for your particular case is for you to create a complete test case and open a bug report here: http://bugzilla.xamarin.com, attaching the test case.

Resources