Passing data buffers from C++ to LabVIEW - c++

I am trying to create a LabVIEW DLL and call it from a C++ program but I am facing a problem of data passing.
A scientific camera I recently bought comes with a LabVIEW SDK, and nothing else. The example program provided with the SDK is mainly a while loop around two functions, ReadData and DecodeData.
ReadData collects data from USB (using VISA read), the data obtained in one call contains several complete data blocks and an incomplete incoming block.
DecodeData is called multiple times to process all the complete blocks (it removes the processed data from the buffer). When all the complete blocks have been processed, the remaining data (the beginning of the incoming block) is passed to ReadData which will concatenate its new data at the end of the buffer.
Full example code:
Details of ReadData:
Details of DecodeData:
In the example program, written in LabVIEW, everything works fine. The problem is when I export these functions in a DLL. The memory buffers, inputs and outputs of both functions, are char arrays. After ReadData, my C++ program correctly obtains a buffer containg data, including null bytes.
The problem is when I inject this buffer in DecodeData, it seems that LabVIEW only takes into account the bytes before the first null byte... I guess that the char[] input is just processed as a null-terminated string and the rest of the data is just discarded.
I tried to add data converters ("string to byte array" at outputs and "byte array to string" at inputs) but the conversion function also discards the data after the first null character.
I could modify the .vi from the sdk to only handle byte arrays and not strings, but it uses lots of character processing functions and I would prefer leaving it as is.
How can I pass the data buffer from C++ to the LabVIEW DLL without losing part of my data?
Edit: here is the C++ code.
The header exported with the LabVIEW DLL:
int32_t __cdecl CORE_S_Read_data_from_USB(char VISARefIn[],
Enum1 blockToProcessPrevCycle, uint32_t bytesToProcessPrevCycle,
uint8_t inBytesRead[], uint32_t *BytesReceived, LVBoolean *DataReception,
uint8_t outBytesRead[], Enum1 *blockToProcess, uint32_t *bytesToProcess,
int32_t longueur, int32_t longueur2);
void __cdecl CORE_S_Decode_data(uint8_t inBytesRead[],
LVBoolean LUXELL256TypeB, uint32_t bytesToProcess, Enum1 blockToProcess,
Cluster2 *PrevHeader, LVBoolean *FrameCompleto,
uint32_t *bytesToProcessNextCycle, Enum1 *blockToProcessNextCycle,
Cluster2 *HeaderOut, uint8_t outBytesRead[], Int16Array *InfraredImage,
Cluster2 *Header, int32_t longueur, int32_t longueur2, int32_t longueur3);
Usage in my C++ source:
while (...)
{
// Append new data in uiBytesRead
ret = CORE_S_Read_data_from_USB(VISARef, blockToProcess, bytesToProcess, uiBytesRead, &BytesReceived,
&DataReception, uiBytesRead, &blockToProcess, &bytesToProcess, BUFFER_SIZE, BUFFER_SIZE);
if (DataReception == 0)
continue;
bool FrameCompleto = true;
while (FrameCompleto)
{
// Removes one frame of uiBytesRead per call
CORE_S_Decode_data(uiBytesRead, LUXELL256TypeB, 0, blockToProcess, &Header, &FrameCompleto, &bytesToProcess, &blockToProcess, &Header,
uiBytesRead, &InfraredImage, &Header, BUFFER_SIZE, BUFFER_SIZE, BUFFER_SIZE);
}
}

It is a little tricky to answer in this specific case but assuming that the problem is that NULL values in the buffer data are causing issues then it might be worth looking at the option to use String Handle Pointers for the String-Type controls and indicators of the VIs you are exporting.
This option can be selected during the "Define VI Prototype" stage of configuring the DLL Build
LabVIEW manages String Types internally as an integer of the string's length and an unsigned char array so it shouldn't matter what characters are used. For interfacing with external code, LabVIEW's extcode.h header defines an LStrHandle as follows:
typedef struct {
int32 cnt; /* number of bytes that follow */
uChar str[1]; /* cnt bytes */
} LStr, *LStrPtr, **LStrHandle;
So a String Handle Pointer is of type *LStrHandle.
extcode.h provides the macros LHStrBuf(LStrHandle) and LHStrLen(LStrHandle) which can ease dereferencing for the String Handle Pointer when you want to read or update the string content and length. Also, note a NULL handle can be used to represent an empty string so don't assume that the handle will be valid without checking.
When creating or resizing String Handle Pointers to pass to a function, it is worth noting that an LStr has exactly the same in-memory representation as a LabVIEW-array so the function NumericArrayResize with typeCode uB can create/resize a large enough buffer to store the string and the length-integer.
An example of creating a new String Handle Pointer for a string of length required_string_length is achieved by passing NumericArrayResize a handle pointer where the handle is NULL.
LStrHandle* new_string_handle_pointer;
// assign NULL value to handle
*new_string_handle_pointer=0;
err = NumericArrayResize(uB, 1, (UHandle *)new_string_handle_pointer, required_string_length);
// new_string_handle_pointer will now reference the new LStrHandle
When updating the String value in a String Handle remember to write the string's characters to the uChar array and to update the size integer. From a performance view, it might not be worth shrinking a String Handle when updating it to a shorter string but you will need to resize it if you know the string you are writing to it will be longer than what it can hold.
You should clean up any handle that is passed to you from LabVIEW or a LabVIEW-based DLL so once you have finished with it, call DSDisposeHandle on the handle that the handle-pointer references.
For more information on LabVIEW's memory manager function please read this guide.

Related

sending IOKit command with dynamic length

I'm using IOKit framework to communicate with my driver using IOConnectCallMethod from the user-space client and IOExternalMethodDispatch on the driver side.
So far I was able to send fixed length commands, and now I wish to send a varied size array of chars (i.e. fullpath).
However, it seems that the driver and the client sides command lengths are coupled, which means that checkStructureInputSize from IOExternalMethodDispatch in driver must be equal to inputStructCnt from
IOConnectCallMethod in client side.
Here are the struct contents on both sides :
DRIVER :
struct IOExternalMethodDispatch
{
IOExternalMethodAction function;
uint32_t checkScalarInputCount;
uint32_t checkStructureInputSize;
uint32_t checkScalarOutputCount;
uint32_t checkStructureOutputSize;
};
CLIENT:
kern_return_t IOConnectCallMethod(
mach_port_t connection, // In
uint32_t selector, // In
const uint64_t *input, // In
uint32_t inputCnt, // In
const void *inputStruct, // In
size_t inputStructCnt, // In
uint64_t *output, // Out
uint32_t *outputCnt, // In/Out
void *outputStruct, // Out
size_t *outputStructCnt) // In/Out
Here's my failed attempt to use a varied size command :
std::vector<char> rawData; //vector of chars
// filling the vector with filePath ...
kr = IOConnectCallMethod(_connection, kCommandIndex , 0, 0, rawData.data(), rawData.size(), 0, 0, 0, 0);
And from the driver command handler side, I'm calling IOUserClient::ExternalMethod with IOExternalMethodArguments *arguments and IOExternalMethodDispatch *dispatch but this requires the exact length of data I'm passing from the client which is dynamic.
this doesn't work unless I set the dispatch function with the exact length of data it should expect.
Any idea how to resolve this or perhaps there's a different API I should use in this case ?
As you have already discovered, the answer for accepting variable-length "struct" inputs and outputs is to specify the special kIOUCVariableStructureSize value for input or output struct size in the IOExternalMethodDispatch.
This will allow the method dispatch to succeed and call out to your method implementation. A nasty pitfall however is that structure inputs and outputs are not necessarily provided via the structureInput and structureOutput pointer fields in the IOExternalMethodArguments structure. In the struct definition (IOKit/IOUserClient.h), notice:
struct IOExternalMethodArguments
{
…
const void * structureInput;
uint32_t structureInputSize;
IOMemoryDescriptor * structureInputDescriptor;
…
void * structureOutput;
uint32_t structureOutputSize;
IOMemoryDescriptor * structureOutputDescriptor;
…
};
Depending on the actual size, the memory region might be referenced by structureInput or structureInputDescriptor (and structureOutput or structureOutputDescriptor) - the crossover point has typically been 8192 bytes, or 2 memory pages. Anything smaller will come in as a pointer, anything larger will be referenced by a memory descriptor. Don't count on a specific crossover point though, that's an implementation detail and could in principle change.
How you handle this situation depends on what you need to do with the input or output data. Usually though, you'll want to read it directly in your kext - so if it comes in as a memory descriptor, you need to map it into the kernel task's address space first. Something like this:
static IOReturn my_external_method_impl(OSObject* target, void* reference, IOExternalMethodArguments* arguments)
{
IOMemoryMap* map = nullptr;
const void* input;
size_t input_size;
if (arguments->structureInputDescriptor != nullptr)
{
map = arguments->structureInputDescriptor->createMappingInTask(kernel_task, 0, kIOMapAnywhere | kIOMapReadOnly);
if (map == nullptr)
{
// insert error handling here
return …;
}
input = reinterpret_cast<const void*>(map->getAddress());
input_size = map->getLength();
}
else
{
input = arguments->structureInput;
input_size = arguments->structureInputSize;
}
// …
// do stuff with input here
// …
OSSafeReleaseNULL(map); // make sure we unmap on all function return paths!
return …;
}
The output descriptor can be treated similarly, except without the kIOMapReadOnly option of course!
CAUTION: SUBTLE SECURITY RISK:
Interpreting user data in the kernel is generally a security-sensitive task. Until recently, the structure input mechanism was particularly vulnerable - because the input struct is memory-mapped from user space to kernel space, another userspace thread can still modify that memory while the kernel is reading it. You need to craft your kernel code very carefully to avoid introducing a vulnerability to malicious user clients. For example, bounds-checking a userspace-supplied value in mapped memory and then re-reading it under the assumption that it's still within the valid range is wrong.
The most straightforward way to avoid this is to make a copy of the memory once and then only use the copied version of the data. To take this approach, you don't even need to memory-map the descriptor: you can use the readBytes() member function. For large amounts of data, you might not want to do this for efficiency though.
Recently (during the 10.12.x cycle) Apple changed the structureInputDescriptor so it's created with the kIOMemoryMapCopyOnWrite option. (Which as far as I can tell was created specifically for this purpose.) The upshot of this is that if userspace modifies the memory range, it doesn't modify the kernel mapping but transparently creates copies of the pages it writes to. Relying on this assumes your user's system is fully patched up though. Even on a fully patched system, the structureOutputDescriptor suffers from the same issue, so treat it as write-only from the kernel's point of view. Never read back any data you wrote there. (Copy-on-write mapping makes no sense for the output struct.)
After going through the relevant manual again, I've found the relevant paragraph :
The checkScalarInputCount, checkStructureInputSize, checkScalarOutputCount, and checkStructureOutputSize fields allow for sanity-checking of the argument list before passing it along to the target object. The scalar counts should be set to the number of scalar (64-bit) values the target's method expects to read or write. The structure sizes should be set to the size of any structures the target's method expects to read or write. For either of the struct size fields, if the size of the struct can't be determined at compile time, specify kIOUCVariableStructureSize instead of the actual size.
So all I had to do in order to avoid the size verification, is to set the field checkStructureInputSize to value kIOUCVariableStructureSize in IoExternalMethodDispatch and the command passed to the driver properly.

proper way to use GNU/Linux read() function

in the man pages of GNU/Linux the read function is described with following synopsis:
ssize_t read(int fd, void *buf, size_t count);
I would like to use this function to read data from a socket or a serial port. If the count is greater than one, the pointer supplied in the function argument will point to the last byte that was read from the port in the memory so pointer decrement is necessary for bringing the pointer to the first byte of data. This is dangerous because using it in a language like C++ with it's dynamic memory allocation of containers based on their size and space needs could corrupt data at the point of return from read() function. I thought of using a C-style array instead of a pointer. Is this the correct approach? If not, what is the correct way to do this? The programming language I'm using is C++.
EDIT:
The code that caused the described situation is as follows:
QSerialPort class was used to configure and open the port with following parameters:
Baudrate of 115200
8 data bits
No parity
One stop bit
No flow control
and for the reading part as long as the stackoverflow is concerned the read is performed exactly like this:
A std::vector containing a number of structs defined this way:
struct DataMember
{
QString name;
size_t count;
char *buff;
}
then within a while loop until the end of the mentioned std::vector is reached, a read() is performed based on count member variable of the said struct and the data is stored in the same struct's buff:
ssize_t nbytes = read(port->handle(), v.at(i).buff, v.at(i).count);
and then the data is printed on the console. In my test case as long as the data is one byte the value printed is correct but for more than one byte the value displayed is the last value that was read from the port plus some garbage values. I don't know why is this happening. Note that the correct result is obtained when the char *buff is changed to char buff[count].
If the count is greater than one, the pointer supplied in the function argument will point to the last byte that was read from the port in the memory
No. The pointer is passed to the read() method by value, so it is therefore completely and utterly impossible for the value to be any different after the call than it was before, regardless of the count.
so pointer decrement is necessary for bringing the pointer to the first byte of data.
The pointer already points to the first byte of data. No decrement is necessary.
This is dangerous because using it in a language like C++ with it's dynamic memory allocation of containers based on their size and space needs could corrupt data at the point of return from read() function.
This is all nonsense based on an impossibility.
You are mistaken about all this.
In my test case as long as the data is one byte the value printed is correct but for more than one byte the value displayed is the last value that was read from the port plus some garbage values.
From the read(2) manpage:
On success, the number of bytes read is returned (zero indicates end of file),
and the file position is advanced by this number. It is not an error if this number is
smaller than the number of bytes requested; this may happen for example because fewer
bytes are actually available right now (maybe because we were close to end-of-file, or
because we are reading from a pipe, or from a terminal), or because read() was interrupted
by a signal. On error, -1 is returned, and errno is set appropriately. In this case it
is left unspecified whether the file position (if any) changes.
In the case of pipes, sockets and character devices (that includes serial ports) and a blocking file descriptor (default) read will, in practice, not wait for the full count. In your case read() blocks until a byte comes in on the serial port and returns. That is why in the output the first byte is correct and the rest is garbage (uninitialized memory). You have to add a loop around the read() that repeats until count bytes have been read if you need the full count.
I don't know why is this happening.
But I know. char * is just a pointer, but that pointer needs to be initialized to something before you can use it. Without doing so you're invoking undefined behavior and everything might happen.
Instead of the size_t count; and char *buff elements you should just use a std::vector<char>, before making the read call, resize it to the number of bytes you want to read, then take the address of the first element of that vector and pass that to read:
struct fnord {
std::string name;
std::vector data;
};
and use it like this; note that using read requires some additional work to properly deal with signal and error conditions.
size_t readsomething(int fd, size_t count, fnord &f)
{
// reserve memory
f.data.reserve(count);
int rbytes = 0;
int rv;
do {
rv = read(fd, &f.data[rbytes], count - rbytes);
if( !rv ) {
// End of File / Stream
break;
}
if( 0 > rv ) {
if( EINTR == errno ) {
// signal interrupted read... restart
continue;
}
if( EAGAIN == errno
|| EWOULDBLOCK == errno ) {
// file / socket is in nonblocking mode and
// no more data is available.
break;
}
// some critical error happened. Deal with it!
break;
}
rbytes += rv;
} while(rbytes < count);
return rbyteS;
}
Looking at your first paragraph of gibberish:
If the count is greater than one, the pointer supplied in the function argument will point to the last byte that was read from the port in the memory
What makes you think so? This is not how it works. Most likely you passed some invalid pointer that wasn't properly initialized. Anything can happen.
so pointer decrement is necessary for bringing the pointer to the first byte of data.
Nope. That's not how it works.
This is dangerous because using it in a language like C++ with it's dynamic memory allocation of containers based on their size and space needs could corrupt data at the point of return from read() function.
Nope. That's not how it works!
C and C++ are an explicit languages. Everything happens in plain sight and nothing happens without you (the programmer) explicitly requesting it. No memory is allocated without you requesting this to happen. It can either be an explicit new, some RAII, automatic storage or the use of a container. But nothing happens "out of the blue" in C and C++. There's no built-in garbage collection^1 in C nor C++. Objects don't move around in memory or resize without you explicitly coding something into your program that makes this happen.
[1]: There are GC libraries you can use, but those never will stomp onto anything that can be reached by code that's executing. Essentially garbage collector libraries for C and C++ are memory leak detectors, which will free memory that can no longer be reached by normal program flow.

How much consistency is there with WinAPI functions that have string out parameters?

I have recently begun to write in C on Windows and have been trying to be careful with the different ways that string buffers are handled. For instance, GetWindowText() takes an int nMaxCount of the maximum number of characters, including null. GetModuleFileName() takes a DWORD nSize of the size of the buffer, in TCHARs (I assume this also includes null). Even though these are worded differently and one takes a DWORD while the other takes an int (why the difference in types?), the behavior is identical, correct?
Both return the length of the string that is copied, not including the null, so I should be able to call either of them repeatedly, doubling the buffer size until the returned length is less than the buffer size passed in, like this:
DWORD buf_size = 1024;
DWORD return_val;
wchar_t *full_path = malloc(buf_size * sizeof(wchar_t));
// double the buffer until it's big enough
while ((return_val = GetModuleFileNameW(NULL, full_path, buf_size)) == buf_size) {
buf_size *= 2;
full_path = realloc(full_path, buf_size * sizeof(wchar_t));
}
if (!return_val) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error in GetModuleFileNameW()\n");
return NULL;
}
Do all of the Windows API functions with string [out] parameters work in the same way? Are there any individual functions or groups of functions that behave differently? (for instance, functions that take the size of the buffer in bytes instead of characters, or that take a maximum string length not including the null character or that return a different value than these two)
Actually, I just noticed that the return value of these two is not entirely consistent: GetModuleFileName() returns 0 when it errors; GetWindowText() will return 0 whenever there is an empty string for the window text, which I think I saw quite frequently when I was enumerating windows...
One reason I want to understand it in detail is because in some cases (GetModuleFileName() on WinXP, for instance), an off-by-one error in my code will result in a string that is not null-terminated.
By and large the majority of the Win32 API functions that return strings do so in a consistent manner. GetWindowText is a good choice for a canonical such function. However, there are exceptions, and I don't think anyone has ever compiled a comprehensive list.
The bottom line here is that you need to consult the documentation carefully every single time you write code to call a Win32 API function. Not only regarding the treatment of string output values, but all parameters. And all return values. And error handling. There is variation in style across the API, and even variation within related groups of functions.

Windows readfile with dynamic buffer

I am trying to write a wrapper around Windows file functions, one would read num bytes amount of data from the file and retrun it. For some reason I fail to allocate the memory properly, but I just can't find the reason why:
PBYTE Read(int num_bytes, HANDLER hFile){
PBYTE bBuffer;
DWORD new_size = sizeof(BYTE)*num_bytes;
//after the allocation the debugger already displays a 16 char wide placeholder
bBuffer = (PBYTE)malloc(new_size);
OVERLAPPED o = { 0 };
o.Offset = 0;
BOOL bReadDone = ReadFile(hFile, (LPVOID)bBuffer, sizeof(BYTE)*num_bytes, NULL, &o);
return bBuffer;
}
Data gets copied, but the allocated buffer is always too wide and contains extra wierd filler characters. Can sby please explain what am I doing wrong?
"what am I doing wrong?"
sizeof(BYTE) is 1 so you can remove it everywhere and eliminate the redundant new_size variable.
You tagged your question C++ but used malloc to allocate the buffer. Your design makes the caller responsible for freeing the buffer, which is a poor design approach, and even more so by using malloc/free in C++ program. A good C++ solution to this quandry would be to return a
std::vector.
It is vital that you provide the lpNumberOfBytesRead parameter to ReadFile. Without it you don't know how many bytes were read. And if you don't know how many bytes were read you can't tell the difference between "extra wierd filler characters" and unused memory at the end of the buffer. If the data is characters then character-oriented output routines (and debugger tools) don't know the difference either, since there is no null terminator at the end of the data that was actually read. You could use NumberOfBytesRead to put in a nul terminator so you and the debugger don't read beyond the real data.

Parsing buffer data in C++

My C++ project has a buffer which could be any size and is filled by Bluetooth. The format of the incoming messages is like 0x43 0x0B 0x00 0x06 0xA2 0x03 0x03 0x00 0x01 0x01 0x0A 0x0B 0x0B 0xE6 0x0D in which starts with 0x43 and ends with 0x0D. So, it means that each time when buffer is filled, it can have different order of contents according to the above message format.
static const int BufferSize = 1024;
byte buffer[BufferSize];
What is the best way to parse the incoming messages in this buffer?
Since I have come from Java and .NET, What is the best way to make each extracted message as an object? Class could be solution?
I have created a separate class for parsing the buffer like bellow, am I in a right direction?
#include<parsingClass.h>
class A
{
parsingClass ps;
public:
parsingClass.parse(buffer, BufferSize);
}
class ReturnMessage{
char *message;
public:
char *getMessage(unsigned char *buffer,int count){
message = new char[count];
for(int i = 1; i < count-2; i++){
message[i-1] = buffer[i];
}
message[count-2] = '\0';
return message;
}
};
class ParserToMessage{
static int BufferSize = 1024;
unsigned char buffer[BufferSize];
unsigned int counter;
public:
static char *parse_buffer()
{
ReturnMessage rm;
unsigned char buffByte;
buffByte = blueToothGetByte(); //fictional getchar() kind of function for bluetooth
if(buffByte == 0x43){
buffer[counter++] = buffByte;
//continue until you find 0x0D
while((buffByte = blueToothGetByte()) != 0x0D){
buffer[counter++] = buffByte;
}
}
return rm.getMessage(buffer,counter);
}
};
Can you have the parser as a method of a 'ProtocolUnit' class? The method could take a buffer pointer/length as a parameter and return an int that indicates how many bytes it consumed from the buffer before it correctly assembled a complete protocol unit, or -1 if it needs more bytes from the next buffer.
Once you have a complete ProtocolUnit, you can do what you wish with it, (eg. queue it off to some processing thread), and create a new one for the remaining bytes/next buffer.
My C++ project has a buffer which could be any size
The first thing I notice is that you have hard-coded the buffer size. You are in danger of buffer overflow if an attempt is made to read data bigger than the size you have specified into the buffer.
If possible keep the buffer size dynamic and create the byte array according to the size of the data to be received into the buffer. Try and inform the object where your byte array lives of the incoming buffer size, before you create the byte array.
int nBufferSize = GetBufferSize();
UCHAR* szByteArray = new UCHAR[nBufferSize];
What is the best way to parse the incoming messages in this buffer?
You are on the right lines, in that you have created and are using a parser class. I would suggest using memcpy to copy the individual data items one at a time, from the buffer to a variable of your choice. Not knowing the wider context of your intention at this point, I cannot add much to that.
Since I have come from Java and .NET, What is the best way to make
each extracted message as an object? Class could be solution?
Depending on the complexity of the data you are reading from the buffer and what your plans are, you could use a class or a struct. If you do not need to create an object with this data, which provides services to other objects, you could use a struct. Structs are great when your need isn't so complex, whereby a full class might be overkill.
I have created a separate class for parsing the buffer like bellow, am
I in a right direction?
I think so.
I hope that helps for starters!
The question "how should I parse this" depends largely on how you want to parse the data. Two things are missing from your question:
Exactly how do you receive the data? You mention Bluetooth but what is the programming medium? Are you reading from a socket? Do you have some other kind of API? Do you receive it byte at a time or in blocks?
What are the rules for dealing with the data you are receiving? Most data is delimited in some way or of fixed field length. In your case, you mention that it can be of any length but unless you explain how you want to parse it, I can't help.
One suggestion I would make is to change the type of your buffer to use std::vector :
std::vector<unsigned char> buffer(normalSize)
You should choose normalSize to be something around the most frequently observed size of your incoming message. A vector will grow as you push items onto it so, unlike the array you created, you won't need to worry about buffer overrun if you get a large message. However, if you do go above normalSize under the covers the vector will reallocate enough memory to cope with your extended requirements. This can be expensive so you don't want to do it too often.
You use a vector in pretty much the same way as your array. One key difference is that you can simply push elements onto the end of the vector, rather than having to keep a running pointer. SO imagine you received a single int at a time from the Bluetooth source, your code might look something like this:
// Clear out the previous contents of the buffer.
buffer.clear();
int elem(0);
// Find the start of your message. Throw away elements
// that we don't need.
while ( 0x43 != ( elem = getNextBluetoothInt() ) );
// Push elements of the message into the buffer until
// we hit the end.
while ( 0x0D != elem )
{
buffer.push_back( elem );
}
buffer.push_back( elem ); // Remember to add on the last one.
The key benefit is that array will automatically resize the vector without you having to do it no matter whether the amount of characters pushed on is 10 or 10,000.