In my application I have written the shut down hook. But some third party code is calling that shut down hook.
This shut down hook should not be called by any third party code.
I have written the code to block shut down hook by third party but it did not help. (This code worked in my standalone test program. but did not worked in my application.)
Below are the code where something different behaviour is occurring:
final SecurityManager securityManager = new SecurityManager() {
public void checkPermission(Permission permission) {
System.out.println("In checkPermission:{" + permission.getName() + "}");
if ("exitVM.0".equals(permission.getName())) {
throw new ExitTrappedException();
}
}
};
When I execute this code in Test program then when shut down being called its giving me "In checkPermission:{exitVM.0}". So that it comes in if condition and my shut down hook gets blocked.
Now when I tried same thing in my application then this "exitVM.0" is not getting printed and shut down hook is getting called.
Any suggestions? Is there any different permission.getName() which can call shutdown hook?
It could be exitVM.1, exitVM.2, etc, since the number is just the shutdown code. The actual permission is called exitVM. (see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/permissions.html). So you could use permission.getName().startsWith("exitVM").
But what you're trying to do (prevent application being shut down) sounds like it might not be the best idea. What's the context?
Is it possible to schedule a executable file to run just before log-off using java?
I am working on a application that needed to send a message to the sever just before the system log-off/shutdown. But I didn't find any method to solve it. If anyone know plz help me.
Thanks in advnce.
As stated in the comments a ShutdownHook is probably what you are searching for.
Short example:
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
// Code to be executed when JVM exits
System.out.println("JVM exit");
}
});
Note that the ShutdownHook will execute whenever the JVM exits. So it will also execute when your program terminates normally.
If you have any further questions comment on this answer.
Within the main() of my application I have the following code to back up data so it doesn't get lost in the event of a system shut down.
//add hook to trigger Production Shutdown sequence
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Production.shutdown();
}
}));
However, whether I press the Stop button in my IDE or rely on input via the log (code shown below) it never seems to save data to the database or write any logs to the console.
ctx.deploy(server);
server.start();
//start the production process
Production.init();
System.in.read();
server.stop();
How come this shutdown function is not being executed?
You need to use the Exit button, not Stop, see my answer here for more details.
Note that this feature is currently available only in Run mode, not in Debug.
System.exit(0)
add this line in your code. Debug from here onwards
I am trying to get my Java program to exit gracefully on my unix server. I have a jar file, which I start through a cron job in the morning. Then in the evening, when I want to shut it down, I have a cron job which calls a script that finds the PID and calls kill -9 <PID>. However, it doesn't seem that my shutdown hook is activated when I terminate this way. I also tried kill <PID> (no -9) and I get the same problem. How can I make sure the shutdown hook gets called? Alternatively, perhaps there is a better way to kill my process daily.
class ShutdownHook {
ShutdownHook() {}
public void attachShutDownHook() {
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Shut down hook activating");
}
});
System.out.println("Shut Down Hook Attached.");
}
}
You can use code like this on Unix to trap SIGINT (#2) signal:
Signal.handle(new Signal("INT"), new SignalHandler() {
public void handle(Signal sig) {
// Forced exit
System.exit(1);
}
});
kill -9 <pid> sends a KILL signal. This signal cannot be intercepted by the program.
If you call kill <pid>, the TERM signal (15) wil be sent. In that case, the JVM will catch the signal and the shutdown hooks will be executed.
This has nothing to do with the signals the JVM is trapping/receiving but everything to do with the terrible shutdown process of Gnome, which apparently needs to be cooperative not to absolutely shit the bed (and the jdk doesn't have the api for this). If you want to see a even worse consequence of this, try to run:
dbus-monitor --profile --session type='method_call',interface='org.gnome.SessionManager'
on a shell, and logout or restart: it will crash gnome-shell and hang the computer until you login on a TTY and order a restart.
Maybe kdbus will fix this on this case, maybe not. The only thing i know is that shutdownhooks on a java application that is using AWT (not command line) will NEVER run its shutdownhooks on GNOME3. Actually, the VM will always exit with non-zero code (failure) presumably from native code. At least it doesn't hang, although this makes shutdown hooks quite useless
(i've been trying to make a workaround by using dbus-monitor, but as you can see from the example i gave, it's a bit too dangerous too).
How do you handle clean up when the program receives a kill signal?
For instance, there is an application I connect to that wants any third party app (my app) to send a finish command when logging out. What is the best say to send that finish command when my app has been destroyed with a kill -9?
edit 1: kill -9 cannot be captured. Thank you guys for correcting me.
edit 2: I guess this case would be when the one calls just kill which is the same as ctrl-c
It is impossible for any program, in any language, to handle a SIGKILL. This is so it is always possible to terminate a program, even if the program is buggy or malicious. But SIGKILL is not the only means for terminating a program. The other is to use a SIGTERM. Programs can handle that signal. The program should handle the signal by doing a controlled, but rapid, shutdown. When a computer shuts down, the final stage of the shutdown process sends every remaining process a SIGTERM, gives those processes a few seconds grace, then sends them a SIGKILL.
The way to handle this for anything other than kill -9 would be to register a shutdown hook. If you can use (SIGTERM) kill -15 the shutdown hook will work. (SIGINT) kill -2 DOES cause the program to gracefully exit and run the shutdown hooks.
Registers a new virtual-machine shutdown hook.
The Java virtual machine shuts down in response to two kinds of events:
The program exits normally, when the last non-daemon thread exits or when the exit (equivalently, System.exit) method is invoked, or
The virtual machine is terminated in response to a user interrupt, such as typing ^C, or a system-wide event, such as user logoff or system shutdown.
I tried the following test program on OSX 10.6.3 and on kill -9 it did NOT run the shutdown hook, as expected. On a kill -15 it DOES run the shutdown hook every time.
public class TestShutdownHook
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
System.out.println("Shutdown hook ran!");
}
});
while (true)
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
There isn't any way to really gracefully handle a kill -9 in any program.
In rare circumstances the virtual
machine may abort, that is, stop
running without shutting down cleanly.
This occurs when the virtual machine
is terminated externally, for example
with the SIGKILL signal on Unix or the
TerminateProcess call on Microsoft
Windows.
The only real option to handle a kill -9 is to have another watcher program watch for your main program to go away or use a wrapper script. You could do with this with a shell script that polled the ps command looking for your program in the list and act accordingly when it disappeared.
#!/usr/bin/env bash
java TestShutdownHook
wait
# notify your other app that you quit
echo "TestShutdownHook quit"
I would expect that the JVM gracefully interrupts (thread.interrupt()) all the running threads created by the application, at least for signals SIGINT (kill -2) and SIGTERM (kill -15).
This way, the signal will be forwarded to them, allowing a gracefully thread cancellation and resource finalization in the standard ways.
But this is not the case (at least in my JVM implementation: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_25-b17), Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.25-b02, mixed mode).
As other users commented, the usage of shutdown hooks seems mandatory.
So, how do I would handle it?
Well first, I do not care about it in all programs, only in those where I want to keep track of user cancellations and unexpected ends. For example, imagine that your java program is a process managed by other. You may want to differentiate whether it has been terminated gracefully (SIGTERM from the manager process) or a shutdown has occurred (in order to relaunch automatically the job on startup).
As a basis, I always make my long-running threads periodically aware of interrupted status and throw an InterruptedException if they interrupted. This enables execution finalization in way controlled by the developer (also producing the same outcome as standard blocking operations). Then, at the top level of the thread stack, InterruptedException is captured and appropriate clean-up performed. These threads are coded to known how to respond to an interruption request. High cohesion design.
So, in these cases, I add a shutdown hook, that does what I think the JVM should do by default: interrupt all the non-daemon threads created by my application that are still running:
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Interrupting threads");
Set<Thread> runningThreads = Thread.getAllStackTraces().keySet();
for (Thread th : runningThreads) {
if (th != Thread.currentThread()
&& !th.isDaemon()
&& th.getClass().getName().startsWith("org.brutusin")) {
System.out.println("Interrupting '" + th.getClass() + "' termination");
th.interrupt();
}
}
for (Thread th : runningThreads) {
try {
if (th != Thread.currentThread()
&& !th.isDaemon()
&& th.isInterrupted()) {
System.out.println("Waiting '" + th.getName() + "' termination");
th.join();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
System.out.println("Shutdown interrupted");
}
}
System.out.println("Shutdown finished");
}
});
Complete test application at github: https://github.com/idelvall/kill-test
There are ways to handle your own signals in certain JVMs -- see this article about the HotSpot JVM for example.
By using the Sun internal sun.misc.Signal.handle(Signal, SignalHandler) method call you are also able to register a signal handler, but probably not for signals like INT or TERM as they are used by the JVM.
To be able to handle any signal you would have to jump out of the JVM and into Operating System territory.
What I generally do to (for instance) detect abnormal termination is to launch my JVM inside a Perl script, but have the script wait for the JVM using the waitpid system call.
I am then informed whenever the JVM exits, and why it exited, and can take the necessary action.
You can use Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(...), but you cannot be guaranteed that it will be called in any case.
Reference https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/containers/graceful-shutdowns-with-ecs/
import sun.misc.Signal;
import sun.misc.SignalHandler;
public class ExampleSignalHandler {
public static void main(String... args) throws InterruptedException {
final long start = System.nanoTime();
Signal.handle(new Signal("TERM"), new SignalHandler() {
public void handle(Signal sig) {
System.out.format("\nProgram execution took %f seconds\n", (System.nanoTime() - start) / 1e9f);
System.exit(0);
}
});
int counter = 0;
while(true) {
System.out.println(counter++);
Thread.sleep(500);
}
}
}
There is one way to react to a kill -9: that is to have a separate process that monitors the process being killed and cleans up after it if necessary. This would probably involve IPC and would be quite a bit of work, and you can still override it by killing both processes at the same time. I assume it will not be worth the trouble in most cases.
Whoever kills a process with -9 should theoretically know what he/she is doing and that it may leave things in an inconsistent state.