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.
Related
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.
There is a graphical library which is used in a dll, loaded into a process. It seems the library leaks (during loading/unloading several times GDI handle count in the Process Explorer property dialog constantly grows for the whole process).
Is there a way to store all GDI handles created by the dll in a process to delete them all after the dll is unloaded? Say, hook CreateBitmap() and so on? But how to determine whether the resource is being created by our dll, not the process itself?
Regards,
Is there a way to store all GDI handles created by the dll in a process to delete them all after the dll is unloaded? Say, hook CreateBitmap() and so on? But how to determine whether the resource is being created by our dll, not the process itself?
No. You are going to need to fix this problem at source. If the DLL really is leaking handles, you have to fix the DLL.
A way to close all handles open by the DLL and release all resources is in usage of a separate process which loads the DLL and terminates after the DLL is unloaded. So you can evaluate which effort is larger: to fix the DLL, to find another DLL (which doesn't leak and perhaps doesn't have many other pitfalls), or to implement inter-process communication to release the handles and still use the DLL. If you choose the latter way, you could transfer the bitmaps drawn between the processes using a block of shared memory, synchronize using named events, etc. .
To determine the caller you have to get stack trace for each call, look at RtlCaptureStackBackTrace.
Another way I would try to do is to modify this DLL (I assume that you have a DLL binary only, not source code: otherwise you could fix the leaks) to make it use say GDI33.DLL instead of GDI32.dll. Then you create GDI33.DLL that exports those functions that are used by that dll. GDI33.DLL forwards calls to GDI32.dll and collects GDI object handles.
I will sketch the scenario I would like to get working below.
I have one main application.
That application, based on user interactions, can load other applications inside a secure environment/shell. This means these child applications cannot interact with the OS anymore, nor with each other.
The parent program can at any time call functions of these child programs.
The child program can at any time call functions of these parent programs.
Does anyone know how to implement this in C++? Preferably both parent and child should be written in C++.
The performance of loading the child applications inside the parent application doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the performance of the communication between child and parent when calling functions of each other.
You will have to write your own compiler.
Consider: No normal OS supports what you want. You want both executables to run inside a single process, yet that process may or may not make OS calls depending on some weirdness inside the process which the OS doesn't understand at all.
This is no longer a problem with your custom compiler, as it simply will not create the offending instructions. It's similar to Java and .Net, which also prevent such OS calls outside their control.
A portable solution: Google Native Client
One possible Linux solution:
Make AppArmor profile with "hats" (a "hat" is a sandboxing configuration to which the application can switch programmatically with libapparmor),
have the main application create a "pipe",
have the main application "fork",
change into a "hat" corresponding to the child application,
"exec" the child application,
the main application and the child application communicate via the "pipe" created earlier.
If you want a (semi)crossplatform way to do this you can use RPC to call functions in another process. It's going to work on anything that supports the distributed computing environment. It's been around for some time and the msdn documentation states that parts of windows use it for inter process communication so it's probably fast enough. Here's a tutorial on msdn that should get you up and running http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379010.aspx The bad part is that I haven't been able to find a tutorial about using it on linux.
If you don't want to use RPC or find it too hard to find good documentation on the subject, you can use the standard IPC(Inter Process Communication) mechanisms from unix systems to signal your process that should call a certain function. I'd recommend a message queue because it's very fast and lightweight. You can find a tutorial here: http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/node25.html
I am not familiar with OS restrictions in above answers. However, I found an easy way to solve this problem. I hope it helps and does not have a technical issue. I used Linux OS. Suppose I want to call C++ program B inside another C++ program A. I wrote a perl script (such as PerlScript.pl) that contains a system call to run program B. Then in A, I did a system call like system("perl PerlScript.pl") that ask perl to run B for me.
Few months back, I had come across this interesting scenario asked by a guy (on orkut). Though, I've come up with a "non-portable" solution to this problem (have tested it with small code), but still would like to know what you guys have to say and suggest.
Suppose, I created a DLL, exporting some functionalities, written in C++, for single threaded client. This DLL declares lots of global variables, some maybe const variables (read-only) and others are modifiable.
Anyway, later things changed and now I want the same DLL to work with multi-threaded application (without modifying the DLL); that means, several threads access the functions and global variables from the DLL, and modify them.. and so on. All these may cause global variables to hold inconsistent values.
So the question is,
Can we do something in the client code to prevent multi-access of the DLL, and at the same time, ensuring that each thread runs in it's own context (meaning, when it gets access to the DLL, the DLL's global values are same as it was before)?
Sure, you can always create a wrapper-layer handling multi-threading specific tasks such as locking. You could even do so in a second DLL that links with the original one, and then have the final project link with that new DLL.
Be aware that no matter how you implement it, this won't be an easy task. You have to know exactly which thread is able to modify which value at what time, who is able to read what and when etc. unless you want to run into problems like deadlocks or race conditions.
If you're solution allows it, it's often best to assign a single thread to modify any data, and have all others just read and never write, as concurrent reading access is always easier to implement than concurrent writing access (Boost provides all basic functionality to do so, for example shared_mutex).
Can we do something in the client code to prevent multi-access of the DLL, and at the same time, ensuring that each thread runs in it's own context (meaning, when it gets access to the DLL, the DLL's global values are same as it was before)?
This is the hard part. I think the only way top do this would be to create a wrapper around teh existing DLL. When it is called, it would restore the state (global variables) for the current thread, and save them when the call to the DLL returns. You would need to know all of the state variables in the DLL, and be able to read/write them.
If performance is not an issue, a single lock for the entire DLL would suffice, and be the easiest to implement correctly. That would ensure that only one thread was accessing (reading or writing) the DLL at one time.