First off, I'd like to clarify that I'm not talking about concurrency here. I fully understand that having multiple threads modify the UI at the same time is bad, can give race conditions, deadlocks, bugs etc, but that's separate to my question.
I'd like to know why MacOS/iOS forces the main thread (ID 0, first thread, whatever) to be the thread on which the GUI must be used/updated/created on.
see here, related:
on OSX/iOS the GUI must always be updated from the main thread, end of story.
I understand that you only ever want a single thread doing the acutal updating of the GUI, but why does that thread have to be ID 0?
(this is background info, TLDR below)
In my case, I'm making a rust app that uses a couple of threads to do things:
engine - does processing and calculations
ui - self explanatory
program/main - monitors other threads and generally synchronizes things
I'm currently doing something semi-unsafe and creating the UI on it's own thread, which works since I'm on windows, but the API is explicitly marked as BAD to use, and it's not cross compatible for MacOS/iOS for obvious reasons (and I want it to be as compatible as possible).
With the UI/engine threads (there may be more in the future), they are semi-unstable and could crash/exit early, outside of my control (external code). This has happened before, and so I want to have a graceful shutdown if anything goes wrong, hence the 'main' thread monitoring (among other things it does).
I am aware that I could just make Thread 0 the UI thread and move the program to another thread, but the app will immediately quit when the main thread quits, which means if the UI crashes the whole things just aborts (and I don't want this). Essentially, I need my main function on the main thread, since I know it won't suddenly exit and abort the whole app abruptly.
TL;DR
Overall, I'd like to know three things
Why does MacOS/iOS enforce the GUI being on THread 0 (ignoring thread-safety outlined above)
Are there any ways to bypass this (use a different thread for GUI), or will I simply need to sacrifice those platforms (and possible others I'm unaware of)?
Would it be possible to do something like have the UI run as a separate process, and have it share some memory/communicate with the main process, using safe, simple rust?
p.s. I'm aware of this question, it's relevant but doesn't really answer my questions.
Why does MacOS/iOS enforce the GUI being on Thread 0.
Because it's been that way for over 30 years now (since NeXTSTEP), and changing it would break just about every program out there, since almost every Cocoa app assumes this, and relies on it regularly, not just for the main thread, but also the main runloop, the main dispatch group, and now the main actor. External UI events (which come from other processes like the window manager) are delivered on thread 0. NSDistributedNotifications are delivered on thread 0. Signal handling, the list goes on. Yes, it is certainly possible for Darwin (which underlies Cocoa) to be rewritten to allow this. That's not going to happen. I'm not sure what other answer you want.
Would it be possible to do something like have the UI run as a separate process, and have it share some memory/communicate with the main process, using safe, simple rust?
Absolutely. See XPC, which is explicitly for this purpose (communicating, not sharing memory; don't share memory, that's a mess). See sys-xpc for the Rust interface.
Is there a way to take action, thus execute code, when an iOS application crashes? Specifically, I would like to save the core data storage. Is this possible? I would say that this is possible since, for example, Firebase has to send information online for making crashlytics work. How can this be achieved? Thanks
Yes, but it is very difficult, and "save core data storage" would be far too much (and very dangerous, to boot).
Most crashes result from a signal (often SIGSEGV, but also SIGABRT, SIGILL or others), and you can install a signal handler to run code in that case. However, that code must be very, very carefully written because you will be in a special execution state. There are a small number of C functions you are permitted to use (see the man page for sigaction for the list). Most notably, you can't allocate memory. Allocating memory in a signal catching function can deadlock the program in a tight spinlock (done that myself when I tried to write my own crash handler in my more naive days; it's really bad).
The way that crash handlers like Crashlytics do it is that they do as little as possible during the signal handler, mostly just writing the stack trace to storage (using pre-allocated buffers). When you restart, they see that there's an unhandled stack trace from a previous run, and then they do all the complicated stuff like uploading it to a server, or displaying UI, or whatever.
But even if you could write to Core Data in the middle of a signal handler, you would never want to do that. During a signal handler, the system is in an undefined state. Various invariants may not currently hold (such as whether the object graph is consistent). The fact that you're crashing this way indicates that something illegal has happened. The last thing you should do in that state is take data that is highly untrustworthy and overwrite the good data on disk.
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.
When does one use pthread_cancel and not pthread_kill?
I would use neither of those two but that's just personal preference.
Of the two, pthread_cancel is the safest for terminating a thread since the thread is only supposed to be affected when it has set its cancelability state to true using pthread_setcancelstate().
In other words, it shouldn't disappear while holding resources in a way that might cause deadlock. The pthread_kill() call sends a signal to the specific thread, and this is a way to affect a thread asynchronously for reasons other than cancelling it.
Most of my threads tends to be in loops doing work anyway and periodically checking flags to see if they should exit. That's mostly because I was raised in a world when pthread_kill() was dangerous and pthread_cancel() didn't exist.
I subscribe to the theory that each thread should totally control its own resources, including its execution lifetime. I've always found that to be the best way to avoid deadlock. To that end, I simply use mutexes for communication between threads (I've rarely found a need for true asynchronous communication) and a flag variable for termination.
You can not "kill" a thread with pthread_kill(). If you try to send SIGTERM or SIGKILL to a thread with pthread_kill(), it will terminate the entire process.
I subscribe to the theory that the PROGRAMMER and not the THREAD (nor the API designers) should totally control its own software in all aspects, including which threads cancel which.
I once worked in a firm where we developed a server that used a pool of worker threads and one special master thread that had the responsibility to create, suspend, resume and terminate the worker threads at any time it wanted. Of course the threads used some sort of synchronization, but it was of our design and not some API-enforced dogmas. The system worked very well and efficiently!
This was under Windows. Then I tried to port it for Linux and I stumbled at the pthreads' stupid "theories" about how wrong it is to suspend another thread etc. So I had to abandon pthreads and directly use the native Linux system calls (clone()) to implement the threads for our server.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How to stop long executing threads gracefully?
Hello.
I have a background thread which needs to perform an operation, it works fine all of the time except in one case : when the resource is corrupted. When that happens the thread gets Blocked in the Load (to that resource) calls in the Execute method.
When that happens the thread Won't respond to the Terminate method ( call from main thread ) and gets blocked.
So, my question is : How to properly terminate the blocked thread ( from the main thread ). And no I cannot modify the class which loads the resource, or neither know from before if the resource is corrupted or not.
Look for TerminateThread() WinAPI function.
Some useful explanation can be found here or look at MSDN documentation.
Of course, after terminating you must look if any resources allocated in thread not freed and free it appropriately.
Update
Yes, using TerminateThread is bad practice (as specified in comments). I'm agree with this opinion. But "never use it, even if you really need to use it" recomendation it too strong from my point of view and very theoretic. Real world full of design flaws and buggy 3rd-party libraries.
Information, given in question not enough for making right decision about this concrete situation. E.g. it may be temporary workaround with no alternatives, etc.
Therefore, from theoretic point of view right answer is : "There are no way to terminate process properly if you can't control how to "freezing" step in background thread processed."
From practical point of view right answer is: "There are no way to terminate process properly if you can't control how to "freezing" step in background thread processed. But if you realize that you can't, but still needs such functionality - use TerminateThread() API call"
About TerminateThread vs. TerminateProcess:
- Creating/terminating process requires more resources than creating/terminating thread
- Creating/terminating process more complicated => more place for bugs
- TerminateProcess don't terminates immediately and waits for I/O operations to complete (MSDN) => not a choice for scenario where remote shared folder becomes unavailable while reading and other similar I/O scenarios.
- Creating and terminating process requires more user privileges than creating thread, compare MSDN here and here
About resource freeing:
Thread stack freed automatically when terminating thread (as mentonied in MSDN). Resources is primarily resources, allocated by main thread for communication with background thread. E.g. memory structures, mutexes, etc.