A while back I made a post regarding creating a dll, for the purpose of injection, that will cause the host application to trigger an Nvidia Optimus laptop to "awaken" the dGpu. This being necessary because of the pathetic system nvidia created here which results in MANY applications not recognizing the presence of the power dGpu, and instead using the integrated intel gpu. (Specifically some video processing apps which take hours longer using Intel's than it would Nvidia's). That post was here.
Suffice to say, I moved to work in Antarctica and gave up on the project. I just picked it back up years later and decided to learn (enough) C++ to program it here. I have created the DLL, and if I place the DX code in a function, then call that function from a host "caller" program.. IT WORKS!!! However, if I put that code in the DLLMAIN, and then simply load that dll from my "caller" program (without actually calling a specific function)... the procedure executes!!! However, when it gets to the part of the code where CREATEDEVICE is run, it crashes. I have since learned this is due to an issue called deadlock, or loaderlock.. i'm not sure which. I understand the concept, but don't have anywhere NEAR the C++ understanding to develop a workaround.
So basically.. can I run my procedure in DLLMAIN using some workaround? Maybe spawning an independent thread somehow (so DLLMAIN can finish executing to it's return?) Thanks for any info. I'll include the vcproject source code here.. but it's a Frankenstein of things I found online.. so don't look for elegance- I know next to nothing about C++ programming! http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=07876333208461296171
The loader lock is a lock which is per-process and owned just after you call LoadLibrary, until just before the LoadLibrary returns. It is intended to ensure the process correctly accounts for the loaded DLLs and their order.
There is very little code which can be added in DllMain which doesn't run the risk of a fail, as any Windows call which may cause IPC can fall fowl of the loader-lock.
If you can create a thread from outside the process, or create a second function you can call directly, then this will be a better solution
I'm a little new to it and I don't understand the threading term completely yet, Allthough I know how to make a thread and run programs with multiple threads. What I'm wondering about is that when you create a dll file (c++) and inject it into a process (lets say gamehacking) for instance. Would you need to create threads in the dll file, or is that not going to work? After my understanding the main thread will be running from the host process right? Or how does it work?
Well it depends on what you are planning to achieve using the DLL. If that particular DLL has some static functions / utility class, that just takes an input, doing some calculations / processing and produce an output, then there is no need of threading here.
But if that DLL is going to listen on a socket or write to a file or do the actual work that going to need some parallelism, then you might want to create threads inside that DLL.
Basically you must need to understand, what is that task, that is accomplished by this DLL. A DLL can be linked during compile time as a normal library or it can be loaded dynamically in run-time based on your need / use-case.
To answer your question,
Would you need to create threads in the dll file, or is that not going to work?
Ans : Not always. You need to create thread to accomplish some task. That being said, this is not the case always. It is perfectly feasible to run a DLL inside a process, without having any threads.
After my understanding the main thread will be running from the host process right? Or how does it work?
Ans : That's right. Any process you run, there will be one thread by default. If your application is simple enough to be processed by a single thread, then it is a blessing. Keep up with it :)
Since you are specifically refering to injecting the DLL, I have some input for you additionally to what has already been said.
First, let's make sure that the concepts of threads, processes and modules are clear.
A thread is basically the immediate environment in which code runs. Things like the current state of processor registers and stack variables (e.g. your local variables in functions, in most cases, but also where in the code the execution currently stands) belong to a thread. There are also other resources which often have thread-affinity, such as windows. It depends a lot on the resource in question whether and what kind of thread affinity they have.
Let's assume you write a simple hello world program. It will run in one thread which goes through your program from the beginning to the end and print "Hello World". Now let's assume you would want to write a program which slowly writes "Hello World", one character per second, but in the meantime download a file. Then you could create a second thread and have one thread output "Hello World" slowly, and one thread download the file. This means execution can happen in parallel, with different local state - one thread is currently inside your printHelloWorld function and one thread is inside downloadFile.
A process is basically a container for one or more threads. It bundles them together in a shared environment which uses the same virtual memory (this means that for example global variables in your code would be accessible from all threads, but this would require careful synchronization to avoid race conditions) and shares resources such as file handles the threads in the process create. So, your hello-world-and-download program from before would have 2 threads in 1 process, sharing the console for example, and being seen in the task manager as one entity.
A module is a file which contains executable code (in most cases, that is) and is loaded into a process. Usually, in a process there are one EXE file and several DLL files loaded as modules. DLL files and EXE files are technically almost the same, but EXE files are meant to be the basis from which a processes starts, and DLL files are meant to be libraries exporting certain functions which can be used by other modules. Since I said modules are loaded into processes, it means that a module is accessible by all threads in the process, and it doesn't have thread-affinity by its own - in our previous example, when the second thread downloads the file, it may be calling into a HTTP-networking DLL, whose code would then run in the second thread. There is a number of modules which is loaded automatically into each process by Windows, and others are probably loaded by certain features of your compiler.
OK, so, back to your question:
Would you need to create threads in the dll file[...]?
Per se, using a DLL has nothing to do with whether you need to create new threads or not. It depends on what you want to do - if you need to do some time-consuming task in parallel to whatever other code is running, then you would need to create a new thread for it, otherwise there is no need.
[...]or is that not going to work?
As said, you can create new threads if you want (it will work), but it's not a necessity coming with using a DLL.
After my understanding the main thread will be running from the host process right?
The main thread of the host process will of course be in the host process. (Although there is technically no "main thread", since it's perfectly valid to have the first thread in a process create a second one and then terminate, so only the second one would be running anymore, you usually do have the first thread live through the whole lifetime of the process, and you can probably call it the "main thread" in this case.) In which module the currently-running code is located, though, will depend on what the thread is currently doing.
Let me get back to the matter of "injecting": The previous answers appear to have assumed a more "normal" environment where your DLL is just linked to the program and meant to be loaded by it. In this case, your DLL's initialization routine (which is automatically run when a module is loaded into a process) would just be run in the "main thread", probably before the actual work of the process begins.
However, things are a bit different when you inject a DLL. It depends on how you do the injection:
If you inject the DLL by modifying the imports table of the host EXE, then your DLL will be loaded the "normal" way I just said. So you can expect your initialization routine to run during the process' startup, in the main thread.
If you inject the DLL by using the AppInit_DLLs registry key, it would be the same.
Same thing if you inject the DLL by starting the host process suspended, then writing a stub to load the DLL into the processes' memory and using SetThreadContext to point the instruction pointer to it.
If you inject the DLL through means of remotely calling LoadLibrary inside the target process, using CreateRemoteThread, then however, as the name suggests, you are creating a new thread inside the process. In this thread, LoadLibrary will load your DLL and also call your initialization routine, so in this case, your initialization routine would indeed run in a new thread other than the "main thread".
Every process has at least one thread. When that process starts, it's possible to link a bunch of functions, or a library, to the memory space of that process. That's what a dll is. The advantage compared to linking directly to the binary is the library only has to exist in one place in the file system and one place in memory while being used by multiple processes. It's a linking technique, similar to how .so files are used in Linux. It has nothing to do with threading.
Would you need to create threads in the dll file, or is that not going to work?
There wouldn't be any point loading a DLL that didn't contain code that would be run. That said, there are several ways the DLL code might get run:
when the DLL is loaded it gets a chance to run some initialisation code
during initialisation, it might:
start one or more threads, which can keep running - perhaps watching for some event that triggers some action on their part
register for callbacks from the OS or application, such as setting up signal handlers, keystroke handlers, any type of event handler....
it might contain functions that the program will look for dynamically and run, mistaking your DLL code for the original versions of those functions that the program came with
Which of these suits your needs depends entirely on what your DLL is trying to achieve, and what's technically necessary to achieve it. For example, if watching for some memory to have specific content, then modifying it further, it might suffice to have a function in your DLL called by an OS alarm service, resetting itself to go off again later if the triggering memory content is not found. But, the trigger might be existence of a file, or shared memory service, a socket being created etc..
After my understanding the main thread will be running from the host process right? Or how does it work?
Yes - threads started within a process - including any DLL initialisation routines - are also within the process. There are some library functions that may create other processes - such as fork, popen, system - that may contain their own threads.
I am developing a plug-in that runs in several host applications, and which maintains its own threads using the boost::thread library, version 1.53.0.
When running my plug-in in a particular application on Mac, I get a null access error when calling boost::condition_variable::timed_wait(). At the top of the call stack is a call to pthread_getspecific(), which is called from inside the boost thread library.
If I replace timed_wait() with a call to boost::this_thread_sleep(), same behaviour: exception is thrown when pthread_getspecific() is called internally.
This application is the only one which exhibits this kind of behaviour; if I run my plug-in in other hosts, it works as expected.
I don't have much experience with pthreads, but I think the exception must be caused by some properties being set up by the host application. Does anyone have any better idea of what might be going on here?
Thanks!
It turns out that the pthread API calls where not thread safe in my application, causing null pointer crashes whenever I called them in a separate thread.
I have a DLL which invokes an application running underneath. This DLL is loaded by several other applications/processes simultaneously.
So, Basically Architecture is:
My Problem is if Application(s) using DLL is crashed, I want to execute an exit sequence in my Base Application and Exit it.
How can I detect that this DLL is no longer used by any application?
Is there any thing like Load Count of DLL which I can keep track of?
Another glitch is I may have to monitor this via a C# application but that is a further thing.
If you can shell an external program to do the check, you can use this:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896656
Your image is not a good model for what really happens in Windows. Every process gets its own copy of the DLL. The code inside the DLL is shared in RAM but not its data. There are ways to share data as well but that's not otherwise common, a memory mapped file is the far more typical approach.
Windows doesn't give cheap way to find out if a DLL is loaded into a process. There is no notification mechanism either. Whatever you do, it has to start with the processes first. That works in C# too, you could use the Process.Modules property.
Just keeping track of the processes you know that load the DLL is probably sufficient, when the process no longer runs then you can safely assume it doesn't have the DLL loaded anymore either. Use the Process.Exited event or use WMI as shown in this answer.
You could host the DLL in the Base Application either and implement your own ref count using shared sections, easy, and often used. As already mentioned, one possibility would be to implemented your ref counting inside your DLL entry point and detect DLL_PROCESS_DETACH, DLL_THREAD_DETACH, DLL_PROCESS_DETACH, etc according to you specifications.
I have discovered through trial and error that the MATLAB engine function is not completely thread safe.
Does anyone know the rules?
Discovered through trial and error:
On Windows, the connection to MATLAB is via COM, so the COM Apartment threading rules apply. All calls must occur in the same thread, but multiple connections can occur in multiple threads as long as each connection is isolated.
From the answers below, it seems that this is not the case on UNIX, where calls can be made from multiple threads as long as the calls are made serially.
From the documentation,
MATLAB libraries are not thread-safe.
If you create multithreaded
applications, make sure only one
thread accesses the engine
application.
When I first started using the engine, I didn't run across any documentation on thread safety, so I assumed that it was not thread-safe.
I use a C++ class to synchronize access to an engine instance. For more parallel processing designs, I instantiate multiple instances of the engine class.
(edit) I'm using MATLAB R14 on Solaris. I open the engine using the 'engOpen' call, and close it using 'engClose'. My platform does not crash when the Close is called by a different thread than the one that called Open.
From a user's perspective, Matlab's interpreter is purely single-threaded. To be safe, you probably need to make all access to the engine from a single thread.
Note that internally, Matlab uses plenty of threads. There are GUI threads, and in the last few versions, the interpreter can use multiple threads behind the scenes. But, the interpreter is semantically equivalent to a single-threaded interpreter (with interrupts).
You can use engOpenSingleUse instead of using engOpen to make more than one thread working separately. (Only Windows)