maybe stupid question, but i dont know answer. What is difference between using GetModuleHandle or LoadLibrary to load dll(and then to use function of that dll) and to include directly desired header. For example, with using GetModuleHandle:
typedef void (WINAPI *PGNSI)(LPSYSTEM_INFO);
// Call GetNativeSystemInfo if supported or GetSystemInfo otherwise.
PGNSI pGNSI;
SYSTEM_INFO si;
ZeroMemory(&si, sizeof(SYSTEM_INFO));
pGNSI = (PGNSI) GetProcAddress(
GetModuleHandle(TEXT("kernel32.dll")),
"GetNativeSystemInfo");
if(NULL != pGNSI)
pGNSI(&si); //calling function through pointer
else GetSystemInfo(&si);
But I can include windows.h header to directly call that function from my code:
#include <windows.h>
SYSTEM_INFO si;
ZeroMemory(&si, sizeof(SYSTEM_INFO));
GetNativeSystemInfo(&si);
The same applies for example to opengl32.dll, i dont know if it is better to include header file for opengl functions in my project or to use Getmodulehandle and GetProcAdress to invoke desired functions. What is the difference? Is first method with using getmodulehandle benefit in some way? Thanks for answers.
First, make sure you understand that GetModuleHandle and LoadLibrary are not exactly equivalent. But since that's not directly part of your question, I'll leave off a big explanation and just suggest you make sure to understand the documentation in those two links.
To use a dll function directly as if it were like any other function, you don't just include the header. In addition to the header, somewhere in your project it is being told to link against a corresponding lib file. In your example, it would be kernel32.lib. This might be done through various means, such as linker settings in the project or having a #pragma comment (lib, ...) in a file.
When a program is built like that, code is written by the compiler to load that dll when the program starts. If the dll in question cannot be found when you actually try to run the program, then it will fail with an error message. You have no way to write code to catch the failure and take some alternative action.
For dlls that are part of the operating system (like kernel32.dll) or at least typically supplied with it, this immediate loading behavior isn't an issue since you can safely assume the dll will always be there. On the other hand, if you were to build against a dll which is not typically present, then you would have more of a concern. Either you would have to make sure such a dll is distributed with your program or else somehow try to make sure the user installs whatever other package is necessary to get that dll on their system.
Also, if the dll loads but any of the functions you're trying to use from that dll don't actually exist in it, then it will immediately fail with an error message. (It doesn't wait until your program tries to call the function. It finds this discrepancy when the program starts and aborts then.) This can be an issue if different versions of the dll exist out in the world.
Now, when you use LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress, you are asking for the dll to be loaded at the time of your choosing and asking to find a particular function provided by that dll. If either of those steps fails, you have the ability to write code to deal with it in some reasonable manner.
This can be used for various purposes. For instance, you could make a plugin mechanism where the program searches for and loads plugin dlls from some particular folder on the fly. Since the program doesn't know ahead of time which plugins will be present, LoadLibrary is the only way to do this.
Another thing LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress can be used for is to load a dll and call a function from it even when you don't have the proper header and lib files. If you know the name of the dll, the name of the function, and exact signature of the function (parameter types, return type, calling convention) then you have enough to write the code to load that dll and call the function successfully. Occasionally this can be useful. For instance, it's one way that people are able to use certain "undocumented" functions provided by Windows dlls.
Lastly, LoadLibrary/GetModuleHandle/GetProcAddress can be used to let you use functionality that doesn't necessarily exist on all the operating systems you want to support. This appears to be the reason for the code snippet you have that calls either GetNativeSystemInfo or GetSystemInfo. The former is only available from WinXP/2003 on up while the latter is available on Win2000. If the code had just been written as a direct call to GetNativeSystemInfo, then the program would fail to run on Windows 2000. But instead, what you have there checks to see if GetNativeSystemInfo exists on the current operation system and only uses it if so, otherwise it falls back on the more widely supported GetSystemInfo.
So in the case of your example, which technique you choose to call that function depends on which operating systems you intend to support. If your software does not need to run on Windows 2000, then just directly calling GetNativeSystemInfo is a lot easier (and most likely the preferable way to go).
Some functions don't exist in older versions of Windows and when you call a function directly, that function ends up in the import table of your program. If Windows fails to find one of the functions in the import table, the program will not run at all.
In your specific example, GetNativeSystemInfo was added in Windows XP and if you call it directly then your program will not run on Windows 2000 or older.
LoadLibrary is also useful if you want to support 3rd-party plug-ins etc.
GetModuleHandle enables you to load dlls dynamically, what can be used for instance for implementing plug-ins or loading some resources on-demand.
Underneath, there is no difference between the two methods -- static library that you link just contains code that does dynamic linking when program starts (in C).
It depends, in this case I'd say its being used so that the dll/exe won't get loading errors from the windows LDR if the system(kernel32.dll etc) doesn't have exports that the binary might use, onr good example of this is the DEP functions for windows XP, which only exist in SP 2+, but its not a good idea to force a required SP, as it can cut down on the avaiable audience for the program.
OpenGL uses the same sorta principle, due to the fact one can't predict the API support (and extensions), so one must check for it, then import it or an alternative with wglGetProcAddress
Another reason, which is more 'cheap' is so that one doesn't not have to link to certain libs and include certain headers, especially if your using say only 1 function from a very large SDK, this prevents other developers wasting time tring to get the huge SDK(they ofc will need the binary contianing the export)
LoadLibrary and GetModulehandle both will work for the same stuff i.e; they will map the module on to the process at run time but in case of LoadLibrary it increases the reference count in the kernel perspective where as the later will not do so..
Related
I'd like my Windows application to be able to reference an extensive set of classes and functions wrapped inside a DLL, but I need to be able to guide the application into choosing the correct version of this DLL before it's loaded. I'm familiar with using dllexport / dllimport and generating import libraries to accomplish load-time dynamic linking, but I cannot seem to find any information on the interwebs with regard to possibly finding some kind of entry point function into the import library itself, so I can, specifically, use CPUID to detect the host CPU configuration, and make a decision to load a paricular DLL based on that information. Even more specifically, I'd like to build 2 versions of a DLL, one that is built with /ARCH:AVX and takes full advantage of SSE - AVX instructions, and another that assumes nothing is available newer than SSE2.
One requirement: Either the DLL must be linked at load-time, or there needs to be a super easy way of manually binding the functions referenced from outside the DLL, and there are many, mostly wrapped inside classes.
Bonus question: Since my libraries will be cross-platform, is there an equivalent for Linux based shared objects?
I recommend that you avoid dynamic resolution of your DLL from your executable if at all possible, since it is just going to make your life hard, especially since you have a lot of exposed interfaces and they are not pure C.
Possible Workaround
Create a "chooser" process that presents the necessary UI for deciding which DLL you need, or maybe it can even determine it automatically. Let that process move whatever DLL has been decided on into the standard location (and name) that your main executable is expecting. Then have the chooser process launch your main executable; it will pick up its DLL from your standard location without having to know which version of the DLL is there. No delay loading, no wonkiness, no extra coding; very easy.
If this just isn't an option for you, then here are your starting points for delay loading DLLs. Its a much rockier road.
Windows
LoadLibrary() to get the DLL in memory: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684175(v=vs.85).aspx
GetProcAddress() to get pointer to a function: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683212(v=vs.85).aspx
OR possibly special delay-loaded DLL functionality using a custom helper function, although there are limitations and potential behavior changes.. never tried this myself: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/151kt790.aspx (suggested by Igor Tandetnik and seems reasonable).
Linux
dlopen() to get the SO in memory: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/dlopen.html
dladdr() to get pointer to a function: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/dladdr.3.html
To add to qexyn's answer, one can mimic delay loading on Linux by generating a small static stub library which would dlopen on first call to any of it's functions and then forward actual execution to shared library. Generation of such stub library can be automatically generated by custom project-specific script or Implib.so:
# Generate stub
$ implib-gen.py libxyz.so
# Link it instead of -lxyz
$ gcc myapp.c libxyz.tramp.S libxyz.init.c
I'm new to the "hidden/dark places" of C++ and I was wondering how to load a .dll file from a different directory or a sub-directory inside the one where my current executable is running
Ex:
./MyAppDirectory
/MyApp.exe
/SomeDLL.dll
/AnotherDLL.dll
/SubDirectory
/SomeDLL2.dll
/AnotherDLL2.dll
/YetAnotherDLL.dll
/...
So "MyApp.exe" automatically loads "SomeDLL.dll" and "AnotherDLL.dll" from it's root folder "MyAppDirectory" however I also want to be able to load "SomeDLL2.dll", "AnotherDLL2.dll", "YetAnotherDLL.dll" etc. from the "SubDirectory" folder inside the "MyAppDirectory" folder.
I've been doing some searches and from what I've found the only solutions are:
1) Modify the working directory of the executable.
2) Put the DLL files inside the Windows root.
3) Modify the PATH environment variable.
But all of them have some bad sides (not worth mentioning here) and it's not what I actually need. Also another solution is through "Application Specific Paths!" which involves working with Windows registry and seems the be slightly better then the ones mentioned before.
However I need to be able to do this inside "MyApp.exe" using C++ without the need to use external methods.
I'm using MinGW 4.7.2 and my IDE is Code::Blocks 12.11 also my OS is Windows XP SP3 Pro x86.
Any reference, tutorial, documentation, example etc. is accepted and thank you for your time :D
If you are NOT explicitly loading the DLL ("manually", in your code using LoadLibrary(...)), then you HAVE to have the .dll in a place that Windows will look for DLL's, whihc pretty much means one of the three options you are talking about in your question.
When using LoadLibrary, you can specify a relative or absolute path to the DLL.
Note that it's completely different to load DLL's explicitly and implicitly - in the explicit case, you have to use the LoadLibrary, and then use GetProcAddress to find the address of the function, and you will have to use function pointers to call the functions - this is typically only used for plug-ins or similar functionality where the DLL provides a small number of functions (quite often just a factory function to create a objects to do something that has a generic interface class, and each DLL has the same type of function to create an object to do whatever it is supposed to do).
In the implicit load, you don't need to do anything in your code to use the DLL, and the functions from the DLL just appear to be there as if they were hard-linked into the application.
You should use
LoadLibrary("subFolder\\dynamicLibrary.dll");
That's the explicit link to DLLs, it's a bit tougher than the implicit linking(that I think it's what you are using), but I believe that this is the correct way to achieve your purpose
explicit
implicit
I have this habit always a C++ project is compiled and the release is built up. I always open the .EXE with a hexadecimal editor (usually HxD) and have a look at the binary information.
What I hate most and try to find a solution for is the fact that somewhere in the string table, relevant (at least, from my point of view) information is offered. Maybe for other people this sounds like a schizophrenia obsession but I just don't like when my executable contains, for example, the names of all the Windows functions used in the application.
I have tried many compilers to see which of them published the least information. For example, GCC leaves all this in all of its produced final exe
libgcj_s.dll._Jv_RegisterClasses....\Data.ald.rb.Error.Data file is corrupt!
....Data for the application not found!.€.#.ř.#.0.#.€.#.°.#.p.#.p.#.p.#.p.#.
¸.#.$.#.€.#°.#.std::bad_alloc..__gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error.__gnu_cxx
::__concurrence_unlock_error...std::exception.std::bad_exception...pure virt
ual method called..../../runtime/pseudo-reloc.c....VirtualQuery (addr, &b, s
ize of(b))............................/../../../gcc-4.4.1/libgcc/../gcc/conf
ig/i386/cygming-shared-data.c...0 && "Couldn't retrieve name of GCClib share
d data atom"....ret->size == sizeof(__cygming_shared) && "GCClib shared data
size mismatch".0 && "Couldn't add GCClib shared data atom".....-GCCLIBCYGMI
NG-EH-TDM1-SJLJ-GTHR-MINGW32........
Here, you can see what compiler I used, and what version. Now, a few lines below you can see a list with every Windows function I used, like CreateMainWindow, GetCurrentThreadId, etc.
I wonder if there are ways of not displaying this, or encrypting, obfuscating it.
With Visual C++ this information is not published. Instead, it is not so cross-platform as GCC, which even between two Windows systems like 7 and XP, doesn't need C++ run-time, frameworks or whatever programs compiled with VC++ need. Moreover, the VC++ executables also contain those procedures entry points to the Windows functions used in the application.
I know that even NASM, for example, saves the name of the called Windows functions, so it looks like it's a Windows issue. But maybe they can be encrypted or there's some trick to not show them.
I will have a look over the GCC source code to see where are those strings specified to be saved in the executables - maybe that instruction can be skipped or something.
Well, this is one of my last paranoia and maybe it can be treated some way. Thanks for your opinions and answers.
If you compile with -nostdlib then the GCC stuff should go away but you also lose some of the C++ support and std::*.
On Windows you can create an application that only links to LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress and at runtime it can get the rest of the functions you need (The names of the functions can be stored in encrypted form and you decrypt the string before passing it to GetProcAddress) Doing this is a lot of work and the Windows loader is probably faster at this than your code is going to be so it seems pointless to me to obfuscate the fact that you are calling simple functions like GetLastError and CreateWindow.
Windows API functions are loaded from dlls, like kernel32.dll. In order to get the loaded API function's memory address, a table of exported function names from the dll is searched. Thus the presence of these names.
You could manually load any Windows API functions you reference with LoadLibrary. The you could look up the functions' addresses with GetProcAddress and functions names stored in some obfuscated form. Alternately, you could use each function's "ordinal" -- a numeric value that identifies each function in a dll). This way, you could create a set of function pointers that you will use to call API functions.
But, to really make it clean, you would probably have to turn off linking of default libraries and replace components of the C Runtime library that are implicitly used by the compiler. Doing this is a hasslse, though.
I've been using dynamic libraries and GetProcAddress stuff for quite some time, but it always seems tedious, intellisense hostile, and ugly way to do things.
Does anyone know a clean way to import new features while staying compatible with older OSes.
Say I want to use a XML library which is a part of Vista. I call LoadLibraryW and then I can use the functions if HANDLE is non-null.
But I really don't want to go the #typedef (void*)(PFNFOOOBAR)(int, int, int) and PFNFOOOBAR foo = reinterpret_cast<PFNFOOOBAR>(GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle(), "somecoolfunction"));, all that times 50, way.
Is there a non-hackish solution with which I could avoid this mess?
I was thinking of adding coolxml.lib in project settings, then including coolxml.dll in delayload dll list, and, maybe, copying the few function signatures I will use in the needed file. Then checking the LoadLibraryW return with non null, and if it's non-null then branching to Vista branch like in a regular program flow.
But I'm not sure if LoadLibrary and delay-load can work together and if some branch prediction will not mess things up in some cases.
Also, not sure if this approach will work, and if it wont cause problems after upgrading to the next SDK.
IMO, LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress are the best way to do it.
(Make some wrapper objects which take care of that for you, so you don't pollute your main code with that logic and ugliness.)
DelayLoad brings with it security problems (see this OldNewThing post) (edit: though not if you ensure you never call those APIs on older versions of windows).
DelayLoad also makes it too easy to accidentally depend on an API which won't be available on all targets. Yes, you can use tools to check which APIs you call at runtime but it's better to deal with these things at compile time, IMO, and those tools can only check the code you actually exercise when running under them.
Also, avoid compiling some parts of your code with different Windows header versions, unless you are very careful to segregate code and the objects that are passed to/from it.
It's not absolutely wrong -- and it's completely normal with things like plug-in DLLs where two entirely different teams probably worked on the two modules without knowing what SDK version each other targeted -- but it can lead to difficult problems if you aren't careful, so it's best avoided in general.
If you mix header versions you can get very strange errors. For example, we had a static object which contained an OS structure which changed size in Vista. Most of our project was compiled for XP, but we added a new .cpp file whose name happened to start with A and which was set to use the Vista headers. That new file then (arbitrarily) became the one which triggered the static object to be allocated, using the Vista structure sizes, but the actual code for that object was build using the XP structures. The constructor thought the object's members were in different places to the code which allocated the object. Strange things resulted!
Once we got to the bottom of that we banned the practise entirely; everything in our project uses the XP headers and if we need anything from the newer headers we manually copy it out, renaming the structures if needed.
It is very tedious to write all the typedef and GetProcAddress stuff, and to copy structures and defines out of headers (which seems wrong, but they're a binary interface so not going to change) (don't forget to check for #pragma pack stuff, too :(), but IMO that is the best way if you want the best compile-time notification of issues.
I'm sure others will disagree!
PS: Somewhere I've got a little template I made to make the GetProcAddress stuff slightly less tedious... Trying to find it; will update this when/if I do. Found it, but it wasn't actually that useful. In fact, none of my code even used it. :)
Yes, use delay loading. That leaves the ugliness to the compiler. Of course you'll still have to ensure that you're not calling a Vista function on XP.
Delay loading is the best way to avoid using LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress() directly. Regarding the security issues mentioned, about the only thing you can do about that is use the delay load hooks to make sure (and optionally force) the desired DLL is being loaded during the dliNotePreLoadLibrary notification using the correct system path, and not relative to your app folder. Using the callbacks will also allow you to substitute your own fallback implementations in the dliFailLoadLib/dliFailGetProc notifications when the desired API function(s) are not available. That way, the rest of your code does not have to worry about platform differences (or very little).
Currently, I have a C++ exe project, which dynamic load N DLLs.
Those DLLs will perform calling to the functions which is re-inside exe project.
Now, within my exe project, I wish to know the callers are coming from which DLLs.
Is it possible to do so using any available Windows API?
It depends on what your actual goal is. You cannot do it if you're expecting the DLLs to be possibly malicious (that is, if you're expecting them to try to trick you). But if it's just for debugging or logging or something relaitvely harmless like that, you can look at the stack and get the address that the ret instruction will use to return to the caller, enumerate through the loaded DLLs and test which of them that address is inside of.
To get the "return address", you can use the _ReturnAddress intrinsic in Visual C++, and then you can use the GetModuleHandleEx function, passing in GET_MODULE_HANDLE_EX_FLAG_FROM_ADDRESS to get a handle to the DLL that the address is inside of.
But I must repeat: you cannot base security decisions off the results of this test. It is very easy for malicious code to fake and "trick" your program into thinking it's a "trusted" or "safe" DLL. As I said, if it's just for debugging or logging or something, then go right ahead.
Also, this will obviously only tell you the DLL the immediate caller is inside of. You can't do it if you're 5 levels deep or something....
If you have given the same callback to multiple DLL's, then it is up to them to provide you with information about who's who. Most API callback have a parameter you can pass to the callback. If this is so for your callbacks, you can use this to identify the DLLs.
It probably isn't possible considering that the call stack will come back down to your exe anyway.
EDIT: By the look of your post, is this a hypothetical situation?
Is this helpful? Check the parameter 'GetModuleBaseRoutine'
If you're architecting the exe, and you're not assuming the DLL's are hostile (see Dean's answer), you might be able to achieve the effect by providing each DLL with a different set of pointers for the callback functions, which each in-turn forward to the actual callback functions. You could then associate the calls with the calling DLL, based on which pass-through callback was actually called.
Of course, this assumes you're providing the callback addresses to the DLL's, but presumably this would be the normal design for an application where a DLL called back into the calling exe. It won't work if the DLL is mucking around in your process memory for internal functions, of course, but then you're probably into the hostile situation.