How would you kill a thread in Java without manually checking Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()?
For example, how would you kill a thread like this after a time out:
new Thread(() -> {
Result result = ExternalLibrary.performSomeReallyLongRunningTaskWithNoSideEffects();
System.out.println(result);
}).start();
We cannot modify the external library code to add isInterrupted checks everywhere
For the timeout part, if you're open to using guava, SimpleTimeLimiter is a good option.
If you're long running thread does frequent IO, it may be as simple as using an interrupt (which for SimpleTimeLimiter you just need to invoke with amInterruptible=true), because IO operations will generally check the interrupt flag and throw an InterruptedException which you'd hope the third party code will propogate or use to terminate the operation.
If you're long running method doesn't check interrupts or ignores them, and modifying it is not an option, you may be stuck with Thread.stop(), which is deprecated. If the long-running task is sufficiently isolated in it's operation, i.e. doesn't share variables with other running threads, and doesn't open any resources, it may be fine to just do that. But there is no way to be sure. I would definitely just try an interrupt first, it may just work.
Another alternative if the 3rd party code is truly opaque and unmodifiable, is convert it into it's own jar, and invoke it as an external process. That way the process can always be killed in isolation from your application.
In either the case of using Thread.stop() or a sending a kill signal to a separate process, you can execute these operations in response to the UncheckedTimeoutException thrown by SimpleTimeLimiter#callWithTimeout(...)
Related
I'm wondering how to stop an unresponsive thread in Java, such that it's really dead.
First of all, I'm well aware of Thread.stop() being deprecated and why it should not be used; there are already many excellent answers on this topic, cf. [1][2]. So, the question more precisely is, whether it's actually technically possibly to kill a thread which code is not controlled by us but possibly hostile and not responding to interrupts.
In the simplest case, a hostile thread would be running while(true);, but it could as well be using up memory or other system resources to do more damage. Calling interrupt() on that thread is obviously ineffective. What about calling stop() instead?
I have run this in a debugger and, in fact, the thread really disappears. But is this approach reliable? The hostile thread could be prepared for this case; think of try{run();}catch(ThreadDeath t){run();} where it catches the ThreadDeath that is produced when we call stop() and recursively calls itself again.
As an outside observer, we cannot see what is going on; Thread.stop() always runs silently. Worst of all, the usual diagnostics won't work anymore (tried this while debugging on Corretto 1.8.0_275 Windows x64): Thread.getState() always returns RUNNABLE regardless of success in killing the thread, same goes for Thread.isAlive() (always true).
It may not be possible, at least not reliably in every scenario.
IF I understand the mechanism correctly (and there is some uncertainty there), if the code executes in such a way that there are no safepoints during the execution (for example in counted loops), it is not possible for the JVM to signal to the thread that it should stop (the thread never polls for an interrupt).
In such a scenario, you need to kill the JVM process, rather than the thread.
Some extra reading:
How to get Java stacks when JVM can't reach a safepoint
Counted loops
In a nutshell, there's no 100% reliable way to stop a Thread the way you'd like it.
Why?
This is an explanation for others who don't know why, anyone who knows the issue can skip this.
The way how threads are intended to be terminated forcefully is with the interruption state of the Thread. A Thread should be terminated with its interrupt() method is called which sets a boolean flag to true.
When the interruption flag is set to true, the Thread should terminate itself with virtually no delay.
Anyway the Thread can choose to simply ignore this and keep on running.
This is when the stop() method can be called that forces the Thread to terminate. The problem is that this method messes up concurrency, can damage objects and the program can be corrupted without a warning for the user. See Why the stop() method is deprecated?
At the end I could think of two possible ways, one is basically your way, the other one is safer but more complicated.
As an example, a hostile third party .jar which contains a Thread that refuses to terminate can cause these problems.
Quick & Dirty
This solution isn't completely safe but based on the usage this may be acceptable unless you really like security.
Try to first to call the interrupt() method on the Thread and give it a bit time to terminate.
If the Thread doesn't respond, you can either:
terminate the program and warn the user to not run that Thread again.
stop() the thread and hope for the best.
Complicated & Safe
The safest solution I can think of is creating a whole new process to run the Thread in. If the Thread doesn't want to terminate after interrupt(), you can just end the process with System.exit(-1) and let the OS handle it.
You need Inter Process Communication to communicate with the other process and that makes it a lot more complicated but also safer.
Related
How do you kill a Thread in Java?
What is an InterruptedException in Java? (Disclaimer: I've answered it)
What does java.lang.Thread.interrupt() do?
For me isAlive returns false if the process finishes due to Thread.stop.
I've made the following example, and it successfully kills the errant thread.
import java.util.Arrays;
public class BrokenThreads{
static boolean[] v = { true };
public static void call(){
try{
while(true){
Thread.sleep(200);
}
} catch ( Throwable td){
System.out.println("restarting");
call();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
Thread a = new Thread( BrokenThreads::call);
a.start();
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println( Arrays.toString( a.getStackTrace() ) );
while(v[0]){
a.stop();
System.out.println(a.getStackTrace().length);
v[0] = a.isAlive();
}
System.out.println("finished normally");
System.out.println( Arrays.toString( a.getStackTrace() ) );
}
}
Note that "getStackTrace" takes time, and you can see the stacktrace accumulate as recursive calls are made, until two stops happen quick enough to end the thread.
This uses two techniques to see if the thread has stopped. isAlive and the depth of the stack trace.
I think the question describes a scenario that is the reason why Thread.stop() is deprecated since ages now, but was not yet removed … just to have a 'last resort option', to be used only when being really desperate and being aware of all the negative impact.
But that call to Thread.stop() must be build into the code somehow, same as any alternative one may think about – so why not just fix the code for the thread? Or, if that is not possible because that code comes with a third party library without source code, why not replacing that library instead?
Ok, during testing, your own code may go wild, and you need an emergency break – for that, Thread.stop() is still good enough if you do not want to kill the whole JVM (what would be the better option in most of the cases). But again, you have to build this into the code before you start the test …
But in production, there should never be a thread that does not stop when receiving an interrupt. So there should be no need for a replacement of Thread.stop().
This can potentially open a can of worms like memory access violations which will kill the JVM itelf.
What you could do is isolate the thread, running .finalize() on it, then forcing the JVM to run GC operations such as Runtime.gc(), System.runFinalization() while forcing interruptions on that particular thread in order to bypass it's resurrection behavior.
I think .finalize() is effectively deprecated since java11 or maybe sooner, so it probably won't help you much.
If you really want to secure your runtime during it's operational cycles, your best bet would be to find a way to essentially map out your configuration before you start it, and have monitoring tools set up which cross-check against that map and monitor the integrity of your runtime while looking for injected classes and/or threads. ... this is assuming of course, you're attempting to guard against "virus-like" attacks in your jvm ... which is not exactly unheard of but still pretty rare.
If you're running some code off the internet, you could simply solve the issue with a call hierarchy inspection and figure out what spawns that problematic thread.
Note: If that invasive thread is calling native dll code which is looping back into it's caller, then your JVM will crash if you mark sections of it's address space as garbage collected.
I am currently running the JAR that I cannot change, and sometimes it simply gets stuck for no good reason. I have tried finding the ways to interrupt the thread, stop the thread, etceteras, but no luck.
Each solution offered was about doing the complete exit or waiting for a thread to complete.
What I want to do is to simply close the thread, exactly when the timeout completes, and carry on with the program.
What I do not want to do is use the while loop with a timeout, java.util.concurrent.Future, System.exit, and make a Thread.interrupt call.
None of these will help!
You can't forcibly stop a thread in mid-execution. The Thread.destroy() method would have done that, but it was never implemented, and its documentation explains why it would be unsafe to use even if it worked.
There are some other deprecated methods like Thread.stop() and Thread.suspend() which may actually work, but they're also unsafe to use; again, their documentation explains why.
Telling the thread that it should terminate itself, and then waiting for it to do so, is the only safe way to stop a thread.
As an workaround, you could run your task in an entirely separate process, so that you can destroy it when you want it to stop. That is safe, since processes are isolated from each other and destroying the child process can't leave the parent process in an unstable state.
Interacting with a separate process is more difficult, though, since you can't share variables between processes like you can with threads. You'd need to send messages through the process's input and output streams.
Actually, you can't really solve this!
What I mean is: even if you would manage to kill "your" thread that you used to trigger the 3rd party code - you have no way of killing threads or processes created by the code you are invoking.
If you want to be absolutely sure to kill all and anything, you might have to look into rather complex solutions like:
instead of just using a thread, you create a new process with a new JVM B
in that JVM B, you can call that library
but of course, that requires that you put additional code around; so that "your" code in JVM A can talk to "your" code in JVM B
And now you might be able to tear down that process, and all artifacts belonging to it. Maybe.
And seriously: to be really really sure that the 3rd party library didn't kick of anything that you can't stop; you might even have to run that JVM inside some kind of container (for example a docker instance). That you could tear down and be sure that everything is gone.
Long story short: I think there is no way to absolutely control the threads created in a thread. If you need that level of control, you need to look into "outsourcing" those calls.
You can use Executor for this. It allows you to submit tasks (e.g. runnable) and executes those tasks parallely. Also, once you call shutdown(), it lets you configure the timeout and kills all the workers if they are not finished by that time. An example would look like this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
executor.execute(() -> {
//logic to call the method of third party jar
});
//Other business logic
executor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
executor.shutdownNow();
TimeUnit is an enum, with values like SECONDS, HOURS, MINUTES etc (here's javadoc) so you can configure different time units. A couple of points:
Once shutdownNow is called, no new tasks will be accepted (i.e. you can't call execute or submit) and existing tasks will be stopped. So, we are basically waiting for a minute for tasks to be complete and if it is not complete, we are killing that task.
awaitTermination throws InterruptedException (as it interrupts the threads internally if they are not finished) so you will have to wrap it inside try-catch block.
Here's javadoc for Executor.
I have an application which uses a separate thread to execute a calculation performed in code from a separate library. I would like the user to able to cancel this operation as, depending on the parameters, it can take a long time.
I cannot use a stopping variable or check for interrupts as the calculation from the applications point of view is a single line
public void run() {
result = library.performCalculation(params);
}
I would like to be able to use thread.stop() but as far as I'm aware this is not posible on android.
Is there anyway I can cause the thread to stop running?
You're correct, Thread.stop() is not available on Android (and even on systems where it is still supported, its problems outweight its usefulness).
What you can do is two-fold. First, call thread.interrupt() to set an interrupted flag on the thread running your library. Second, modify your library at appropriate point(s) to call isInterrupted() to determine if it is interrupted and, if so, it should voluntarily clean up and leave.
An AsyncTask can be Cancelled. Put that into an AsyncTask and call
AsyncTask.cancel(true);
I have particular situation in our production environment, where a particular piece of code goes into an infinite loop. The cause is mostly data specific and not able to figure out the true cause. In the mean time, what I am hoping to do is spawn a separate child thread to execute that piece of code, and if it executes for say more than 30s, want to stop that child thread from executing
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
// This is where i will the method that runs in a infinite loop
callMethodThatRunsInInfiniteLoop();
};
};
t.start();
try {
t.join(2000); // wait 2s
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
// if not completed how to break the child thread ???
unfortunately no it is a thirdparty code, and will not be able to change it so easily.
It sounds like you are trying to work around a problem in the third-party library ... or in your code calling the third-party library with bad input or something.
My advice would be to fix THAT problem, rather than trying to kill the errant thread(s). And if you can't do that, then you have two choices:
modify the 3rd party library to be interrupt aware/responsive, and then use that to stop it, or
try to find a way to "reach into" the 3rd party library's data structures (e.g. using nasty reflection) and cause it to die.
If you are resorting to the latter, then maybe you should also look at running the 3rd party library in a separate JVM so that you can forcibly kill it using the Process API.
Having said that, there are limited circumstances where Thread.stop() is actually (probably) safe to use. Basically, if the errant thread doesn't create child threads, doesn't interact with other threads and doesn't share data structures, and can't be doing class initialization when you kill it, then you are probably going to be safe. The problem is there are so many theoretical scenarios where stopping the thread could cause damage that it is hard to know that you've considered all of them.
Is there a way to cause the infinite loop code to break by throwing an exception? e.g. set some variable to
null? A possible advantage is that the affected thread (if well written) will clean up after itself and shut down more nicely than a stop().
All methods for stopping a thread 'purely externally' are deprecated and considered unsafe. The only way a thread can be safely stopped requires
modifying the code which is running to check whether it has been politely asked to stop via some stopMe variable being set; or
co-opting a variable the other thread already uses to cause the thread to quit (which is generally very bad practice); for example, by forcing it to throw an exception, as suggested by user949300.
Without this, you have no choice but to use an unsafe method, which means Thread.stop(), which is also very bad practice. This is a very bad idea, and of course the only real solution is to either change your input so that this doesn't happen, or get the third-party code fixed.
Any objects the thread was using may be in an inconsistent (and possibly unusable) state, so try to avoid letting the Thread modify anything important, and don't look at any of its output variables if you can help it.
The Thread.stop() method still seems to exist in Java SE 7, though is of course deprecated, but I can't vouch for your particular environment.
See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
Depending on the implementation of the method, you could start it in its own JVM, then stop it by calling destroy() on the process:
Process process = new ProcessBuilder("java", "-cp", "/some/class/path", "com.mycompany.MyLauncher").start();
// sometime later
process.destroy();
Up to now I used my application as a stand alone product. So, when user pressed "Stop" button I called System.exit(0); and it was fine.
Now my application will be called (in a programmatic way) from another program. So, I afraid that System.exit(0); will kill not only my process but also the external software which started my program.
So, what is the correct way to shutdown my application if a corresponding request from an external software is received? My application is an GUI application. So, I want to close the window but I also want to close all processes performed by my program.
ADDED:
To be more specific, I want to close all threads started by my program. My program does not start any OS process or any other program.
If the threads you've launched are still processing then calling System.exit(0) will cause them to be killed. In some cases, this can leave your application in an inconsistent state. Imagine that the thread was saving a file for example.
You should ensure that the your threads are all 'happy' to die before calling System.exit.
One technique you can use for this with long running threads is poisoning. To do this you send the threads a message that they should now die gracefully - i.e. a poson message. Once they have all died, it is safe to call System.exit(0) to terminate the Swing event handling thread.
There a loads of different ways of implementing poisoning, you could just set a global flag variable that the threads check to see if they've been poisoned, or you could use the Java 5 threading libraries. Take a look at this Javadoc for example and you'll find references to this technique:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/BlockingQueue.html
As long as your programm isn't sharing an application server with others, shuting down the VM by calling System.exit(0) terminates all threads.
From Javadoc
System.exit Terminates the currently running Java Virtual Machine)
EDIT:
If you want to do some clean up code before shutdown, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/lang/hook-design.html
There is on "one-size-fits-all" answer to this that's a drop-in replacement for System.exit, unfortunately.
You will generally need to set some kind of flag that signals to all of your threads that it is time to exit, and ensure that they check this flag regularly. This will let them clean up gracefully without stopping abruptly, and it also ensures the effects are limited to your own components. In this case your application's main thread would also observe the flag, wait for all the "worker" type threads to finish and would then return all the way up the stack until your application's entry point was reached.
This question is not too dissimilar to the deprecated Thread.stop (etc) methods, especially with regards to replacing System.exit with something more respectful. In that light, the why is Thread.stop() deprecated page may be useful reading.
Throwing an exception (a custom one called something like ApplicationStopException) to unwind the stack of the main thread is not such a bad idea; this prevents you from having to handle the special logic all over your code and instead lets the "message" propagate to the higher levels, where they can take whatever action is needed to exit your program gracefully.
I recommend you to do flagging to stop the thread so that the thread will know when it has to stop. For GUI and window, you can call frame.dispose().
For System.exit(), I think it will not affect the caller, you may try to see what is the real effect but as other people already recommended, do not call it directly like that, just let the threads stop by itself