I have a shared object written in C++ in which its functions are called by various applications, most of which are OpenEdge (Progress).
Is there a way to determine inside the .so which program called it without sending it as a parameter from the calling program?
There is a functionality for this in Linux, OSX and Windows.
For Linux and OSX, you're going to want to play around with the backtrace(3) function. From the Linux documentation:
backtrace() returns a backtrace for the calling program, in the array
pointed to by buffer. A backtrace is the series of currently active
function calls for the program. Each item in the array pointed to by
buffer is of type void *, and is the return address from the
corresponding stack frame.
And for Windows, there's CaptureStackBackTrace. It requires XP or higher, however.
There's also a workaround called c-callstack on GitHub, if none of these work properly. Macro functions replace the return calls and give you a call-stack you can work with. Example usage would be something like this:
#include "c-callstack.h"
int foobar(...)
{
if (error/exception)
NL_RETURN(-1);
-function body-
NL_RETURN(0);
}
You can find the .h file in this GitHub repository:
Hope these links helped! As always, you can refer to our KnowledgeBase if you feel the problem you're having/case you're testing goes beyond your .so files.
Progress KnowledgeBase
You can read contents of /proc/self/exename file.
Related
I am trying to create a temporary file on a Linux system, but interfacing through C++ (so that the Linux commands are run through the C++ program).
To do so, I am using mktemp, which produces a temporary file.
I would need to later refer back to this file.
However, the filename is randomly generated and I am wondering if there is an easy way to access the filename.
The big honking comment in mktemp(3)'s manual page explicitly tells you to use mkstemp(3) instead of mktemp(3), and explains the good reason why it is so.
If you actually read the manual page for mkstemp(3) it clearly explains that the library function modifies the character buffer that's passed to it as a parameter to reflect the actual name of the created temporary file.
So to determine the name of the temporary file, simply refer to the character buffer you passed to this library function.
I have a list of functions in a text file that I'd like to expose to LLVM for its execution engine at run time, I'm wondering if its possible to find pointers to the functions at runtime rather than hard code in all the GlobalMappings by hand as I'd probably like to add in more later. For example:
// File: InternalFunctions.txt
PushScreen
PopScreen
TopScreen
// File: ExposeEngine.cpp
// Somehow figure out the address of the function specified in a string
void* addy = magicAddress("PushScreen");
jit->addGlobalMapping(llvmfunction, addy);
If this is possible I love to know how to do it, as I am trying to write my game engine by jit-ing c++. I was able to create some results earlier, but I had to hard-code in the mappings. I noticed that Gtk uses something along the lines of what I'm asking. When you use glade and provide a signal handler, the program you build in c will automatically find the function in your executable referenced by the string provided in the glade file. If getting results requires me to look into this Gtk thing I'd be more than happy to, but I don't know what feature or part of the api deals with that - I've already tried to look it up. I'd love to hear suggestions or advice.
Yes, you can do this. Look at the man pages for dlopen() and dlsym(): these functions are standard on *nix systems and let you look up symbols (functions or variables) by name. There is one significant issue, which is that C++ function names are usually "mangled" to encode type information. A typical way around this is to define a set of wrapper functions in an extern "C" {} block: these will be non-member, C-style functions which can then call into your C++ code. Their names will not be mangled, making them easy to look up using dlsym().
This is a pretty standard way that some plugin architectures work. Or at least used to work, before everyone started using interpreted languages!
We're working on a relatively large-scale C++ project where we chose at the very beginning to use protobuf as our Lingua Franca for stored and transmitted data.
We had our first problem because of end-of-program memory leaks due to the protobuf generated classes metadata that are stored as static pointer, allocated during the first call to the constructor and never deallocated. We found a nice function provide by Mr. Google to do this clean-up:
google::protobuf::ShutdownProtobufLibrary();
Works fine except there is no symmetric call, so once it's done you can no longer use anything . You have to do that exactly one time in your executable. We did what any lazy developper would have done:
struct LIBPROTOBUF_EXPORT Resource
{
~Resource()
{
google::protobuf::ShutdownProtobufLibrary();
}
};
bool registerShutdownAtExit()
{
static Resource cleaner;
return true;
}
And we added in the protobuf generation of cc files a:
static bool protobufResource = mlv::protobuf::registerShutdownAtExit();
It worked fine for several months.
Then we added the support for dynamically loadable plugins (dlls) in our tool. Some of them using protobuf. Unloading of the plugins worked fine, but when more than one of them used protobuf, we had a nice little crash when unloading the last one.
The reason: the last to unload would destroy the cleaner instance, itself trying to google::protobuf::ShutdownProtobufLibrary(), itself trying to destroy metadata of unloaded types... CRASH.
Long story short: are we condemned to either have lots of "normal" memory leaks or a crash when closing our tool. Does anyone have experienced the same problem and found a better solution? Is my diagnosis bad?
Like johnathon suggested in his comment, use a reference counting scheme, or register your destruction routine with atexit. Such a routine is free-standing, but that could work fine for your case.
Relevant documentation:
MSDN
POSIX
Edit: You're right, it's basically the same thing. Didn't think this through.
Another suggestion: Use a global resource singleton for all protobuf-using plugins. This one has a global destructor, which is only registered when a plugin first uses the protobuf library. Or just set a flag whenver it's used, then call ShutdownProtobufLibrary only if the flag is set.
if kernel32.dll is guaranteed to loaded into a process virtual memory,why couldn't i call function such as Sleep without including windows.h?
the below is an excerpt quoting from vividmachine.com
5. So, what about windows? How do I find the addresses of my needed DLL functions? Don't these addresses change with every service pack upgrade?
There are multitudes of ways to find the addresses of the functions that you need to use in your shellcode. There are two methods for addressing functions; you can find the desired function at runtime or use hard coded addresses. This tutorial will mostly discuss the hard coded method. The only DLL that is guaranteed to be mapped into the shellcode's address space is kernel32.dll. This DLL will hold LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress, the two functions needed to obtain any functions address that can be mapped into the exploits process space. There is a problem with this method though, the address offsets will change with every new release of Windows (service packs, patches etc.). So, if you use this method your shellcode will ONLY work for a specific version of Windows. Further dynamic addressing will be referenced at the end of the paper in the Further Reading section.
The article you quoted focuses on getting the address of the function. You still need the function prototype of the function (which doesn't change across versions), in order to generate the code for calling the function - with appropriate handling of input and output arguments, register values, and stack.
The windows.h header provides the function prototype that you wish to call to the C/C++ compiler, so that the code for calling the function (the passing of arguments via register or stack, and getting the function's return value) can be generated.
After knowing the function prototype by reading windows.h, a skillful assembly programmer may also be able to write the assembly code to call the Sleep function. Together with the function's address, these are all you need to make the function call.
With some black magic you can ;). there have been many custom implementations of GetProcAddress, which would allow you to get away with not needing windows.h, this however isn't be all and end all and could probably end up with problems due to internal windows changes. Another method is using toolhlp to enumerate the modules in the process to get kernel.dll's base, then spelunks its PE for the EAT and grab the address of GetProcAddress. from there you just need function pointer prototypes to call the addresses correctly(and any structure defs needed), which isn't too hard meerly labour intensive(if you have many functions), infact under windows xp this is required to disable DEP due to service pack differencing, ofc you need windows.h as a reference to get this, you just don't need to include it.
You'd still need to declare the function in order to call it, and you'd need to link with kernel32.lib. The header file isn't anything magic, it's basically just a lot of function declarations.
I can do it with 1 line of assembly and then some helper functions to walk the PEB
file by hard coding the correct offsets to different members.
You'll have to start here:
static void*
JMIM_ASM_GetBaseAddr_PEB_x64()
{
void* base_address = 0;
unsigned long long var_out = 0;
__asm__(
" movq %%gs:0x60, %[sym_out] ; \n\t"
:[sym_out] "=r" (var_out) //:OUTPUTS
);
//: printf("[var_out]:%d\n", (int)var_out);
base_address=(void*)var_out;
return( base_address );
}
Then use windbg on an executable file to inspect the data structures on your machine.
A lot of the values you'll be needing are hard to find and only really documented by random hackers. You'll find yourself on a lot of malware writing sites digging for answers.
dt nt!_PEB -r #$peb
Was pretty useful in windbg to get information on the PEB file.
There is a full working implementation of this in my game engine.
Just look in: /DEP/PEB2020 for the code.
https://github.com/KanjiCoder/AAC2020
I don't include <windows.h> in my game engine. Yet I use "GetProcAddress"
and "LoadLibraryA". Might be in-advisable to do this. But my thought was the more
moving parts, the more that can go wrong. So figured I'd take the "#define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN" to it's absurd conclusion and not include <windows.h> at all.
From what I can tell you can kick off all the action in a constructor when you create a global object. So do you really need a main() function in C++ or is it just legacy?
I can understand that it could be considered bad practice to do so. I'm just asking out of curiosity.
If you want to run your program on a hosted C++ implementation, you need a main function. That's just how things are defined. You can leave it empty if you want of course. On the technical side of things, the linker wants to resolve the main symbol that's used in the runtime library (which has no clue of your special intentions to omit it - it just still emits a call to it). If the Standard specified that main is optional, then of course implementations could come up with solutions, but that would need to happen in a parallel universe.
If you go with the "Execution starts in the constructor of my global object", beware that you set yourself up to many problems related to the order of constructions of namespace scope objects defined in different translation units (So what is the entry point? The answer is: You will have multiple entry points, and what entry point is executed first is unspecified!). In C++03 you aren't even guaranteed that cout is properly constructed (in C++0x you have a guarantee that it is, before any code tries to use it, as long as there is a preceeding include of <iostream>).
You don't have those problems and don't need to work around them (wich can be very tricky) if you properly start executing things in ::main.
As mentioned in the comments, there are however several systems that hide main from the user by having him tell the name of a class which is instantiated within main. This works similar to the following example
class MyApp {
public:
MyApp(std::vector<std::string> const& argv);
int run() {
/* code comes here */
return 0;
};
};
IMPLEMENT_APP(MyApp);
To the user of this system, it's completely hidden that there is a main function, but that macro would actually define such a main function as follows
#define IMPLEMENT_APP(AppClass) \
int main(int argc, char **argv) { \
AppClass m(std::vector<std::string>(argv, argv + argc)); \
return m.run(); \
}
This doesn't have the problem of unspecified order of construction mentioned above. The benefit of them is that they work with different forms of higher level entry points. For example, Windows GUI programs start up in a WinMain function - IMPLEMENT_APP could then define such a function instead on that platform.
Yes! You can do away with main.
Disclaimer: You asked if it were possible, not if it should be done. This is a totally un-supported, bad idea. I've done this myself, for reasons that I won't get into, but I am not recommending it. My purpose wasn't getting rid of main, but it can do that as well.
The basic steps are as follows:
Find crt0.c in your compiler's CRT source directory.
Add crt0.c to your project (a copy, not the original).
Find and remove the call to main from crt0.c.
Getting it to compile and link can be difficult; How difficult depends on which compiler and which compiler version.
Added
I just did it with Visual Studio 2008, so here are the exact steps you have to take to get it to work with that compiler.
Create a new C++ Win32 Console Application (click next and check Empty Project).
Add new item.. C++ File, but name it crt0.c (not .cpp).
Copy contents of C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\crt\src\crt0.c and paste into crt0.c.
Find mainret = _tmain(__argc, _targv, _tenviron); and comment it out.
Right-click on crt0.c and select Properties.
Set C/C++ -> General -> Additional Include Directories = "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\crt\src".
Set C/C++ -> Preprocessor -> Preprocessor Definitions = _CRTBLD.
Click OK.
Right-click on the project name and select Properties.
Set C/C++ -> Code Generation -> Runtime Library = Multi-threaded Debug (/MTd) (*).
Click OK.
Add new item.. C++ File, name it whatever (app.cpp for this example).
Paste the code below into app.cpp and run it.
(*) You can't use the runtime DLL, you have to statically link to the runtime library.
#include <iostream>
class App
{
public: App()
{
std::cout << "Hello, World! I have no main!" << std::endl;
}
};
static App theApp;
Added
I removed the superflous exit call and the blurb about lifetime as I think we're all capable of understanding the consequences of removing main.
Ultra Necro
I just came across this answer and read both it and John Dibling's objections below. It was apparent that I didn't explain what the above procedure does and why that does indeed remove main from the program entirely.
John asserts that "there is always a main" in the CRT. Those words are not strictly correct, but the spirit of the statement is. Main is not a function provided by the CRT, you must add it yourself. The call to that function is in the CRT provided entry point function.
The entry point of every C/C++ program is a function in a module named 'crt0'. I'm not sure if this is a convention or part of the language specification, but every C/C++ compiler I've come across (which is a lot) uses it. This function basically does three things:
Initialize the CRT
Call main
Tear down
In the example above, the call is _tmain but that is some macro magic to allow for the various forms that 'main' can have, some of which are VS specific in this case.
What the above procedure does is it removes the module 'crt0' from the CRT and replaces it with a new one. This is why you can't use the Runtime DLL, there is already a function in that DLL with the same entry point name as the one we are adding (2). When you statically link, the CRT is a collection of .lib files, and the linker allows you to override .lib modules entirely. In this case a module with only one function.
Our new program contains the stock CRT, minus its CRT0 module, but with a CRT0 module of our own creation. In there we remove the call to main. So there is no main anywhere!
(2) You might think you could use the runtime DLL by renaming the entry point function in your crt0.c file, and changing the entry point in the linker settings. However, the compiler is unaware of the entry point change and the DLL contains an external reference to a 'main' function which you're not providing, so it would not compile.
Generally speaking, an application needs an entry point, and main is that entry point. The fact that initialization of globals might happen before main is pretty much irrelevant. If you're writing a console or GUI app you have to have a main for it to link, and it's only good practice to have that routine be responsible for the main execution of the app rather than use other features for bizarre unintended purposes.
Well, from the perspective of the C++ standard, yes, it's still required. But I suspect your question is of a different nature than that.
I think doing it the way you're thinking about would cause too many problems though.
For example, in many environments the return value from main is given as the status result from running the program as a whole. And that would be really hard to replicate from a constructor. Some bit of code could still call exit of course, but that seems like using a goto and would skip destruction of anything on the stack. You could try to fix things up by having a special exception you threw instead in order to generate an exit code other than 0.
But then you still run into the problem of the order of execution of global constructors not being defined. That means that in any particular constructor for a global object you won't be able to make any assumptions about whether or not any other global object yet exists.
You could try to solve the constructor order problem by just saying each constructor gets its own thread, and if you want to access any other global objects you have to wait on a condition variable until they say they're constructed. That's just asking for deadlocks though, and those deadlocks would be really hard to debug. You'd also have the issue of which thread exiting with the special 'return value from the program' exception would constitute the real return value of the program as a whole.
I think those two issues are killers if you want to get rid of main.
And I can't think of a language that doesn't have some basic equivalent to main. In Java, for example, there is an externally supplied class name who's main static function is called. In Python, there's the __main__ module. In perl there's the script you specify on the command line.
If you have more than one global object being constructed, there is no guarantee as to which constructor will run first.
If you are building static or dynamic library code then you don't need to define main yourself, but you will still wind up running in some program that has it.
If you are coding for windows, do not do this.
Running your app entirely from within the constructor of a global object may work just fine for quite awhile, but sooner or later you will make a call to the wrong function and end up with a program that terminates without warning.
Global object constructors run during the startup of the C runtime.
The C runtime startup code runs during the DLLMain of the C runtime DLL
During DLLMain, you are holding the DLL loader lock.
Tring to load another DLL while already holding the DLL loader lock results in a swift death for your process.
Compiling your entire app into a single executable won't save you - many Win32 calls have the potential to quietly load system DLLs.
There are implementations where global objects are not possible, or where non-trivial constructors are not possible for such objects (especially in the mobile and embedded realms).