What's the approved way to handle second, third, etc launches of application in Windows (C++) application? I need the running (first) instance to take some special action (pop up a dialog) in this case, but for the secondary instances to terminate.
On Mac, AppleEvents sends you a 're-open' message in this scenario. Mozilla on Windows uses DDE to check for an existing instance and pass the command line through. It feels like a pretty nasty solution, all the same.
The windows way is to open a named mutex and, if you can acquire it, it means you're the first instance, if not, there is another one. At this point you can register a windows message (the function is literally RegisterWindowsMessage) which gives you a WM_ msg you can send to all windows and only your app would know to catch it, which allows you to tell your initial copy to open a dialog box or w/e.
How to limit 32-bit applications to one instance in Visual C++
"The method that is used in this article is the one that is described in MSDN under the WinMain topic. It uses the CreateMutex function to create a named mutex that can be checked across processes. Instead of duplicating the same code for every application that you will use as a single instance, the code that you must have is in a C++ wrapper class that you can reuse across each application."
SendMessage Function
"Sends the specified message to a window or windows. The SendMessage function calls the window procedure for the specified window and does not return until the window procedure has processed the message."
"Applications that need to communicate using HWND_BROADCAST should use the RegisterWindowMessage function to obtain a unique message for inter-application communication."
RegisterWindowMessage
"The RegisterWindowMessage function defines a new window message that is guaranteed to be unique throughout the system. The message value can be used when sending or posting messages."
On windows there is not really solution for that at least not out of the box.
You can use mutex to do such things, basically the app check for the mutex at startup create it if it doesn't exist.
There is one issue with CreateMutex method that you might need to consider - the named mutex might have been created by a third party. Now, most of the time, this won't be an issue, there would be no reason for someone else to block your application. However, if you're making a program that does something important, it may be an issue. Consider, if your program was a virus scanner, a virus could disable it by creating the mutex.
Usually, CreateMutex should do the job, but you should be aware of the limits of this method.
Related
I was sitting around bored and thought of this idea. Is it possible to change the WM_DESTROY code so that it will do something else instead of closing the application. But, I don't think this will work, but does that keep it from closing when you try to close the application from the task manager in windows. Also, is there a way to remove my application from the task manager so they wouldn't be able to do that in the first place? So, is this possible or do you have a better way? I have googled this and have tried this, but I want to ask the experienced here to answer this question.
BTW, I am not making a virus.
Windows Task Manager will use TerminateProcess to "close" a process - which is a good thing if your program has accidentally or on purpose got a broken VM_DESTROY handler.
There are supposedly ways to mess about with the process list that hides a process. But I don't actually know how that is done othat than very fundamentally (the process list is a linked list, and you can "unlink" a process from the list, and it "disappears"). Obviously doing so would be the type of thing that virus, trojan's, spyware, etc does, and I don't see any reason why you would want to do that in a legitimate application.
Edit: And hiding the application just means it doesn't appear in the list of processes in task manager. If you KNOW that the task exists (and you could for example "guess" based on system activity or some such), it can still be killed using it's process ID by some application that has enough privileges to terminate the process.
you shoud read win32 api demo. when mainwindow receives WM_DESTROY message, call postquitmessage([exitcode]) to end message loop。
I've searched the web, and various forums, but I can't find one thing, how to continually monitor open programs and then close another program (not the one being monitored) if something happens to the program being monitored.
For example, say that there is an already open Notepad window, and then the user or some other program opens a Windows Explorer window. I want to know how to close the Notepad window without interacting with the Windows Explorer window (other than realizing that it is indeed open), as well as closing the Notepad window if the user closes the Windows Explorer window.
Thanks in advance! :D
On windows, you can use PSAPI (The Process Status API) to know when processes are started and terminate. The EnumProcesses function can give you this information.
A more reliable method to determine that a process terminated (since process ids can be reused) is to wait on its process handle (you will need the SYNCHRONIZE access right) which you can obtain using OpenProcess and the process' id obtained from EnumProcesses.
To terminate a process, there is always TerminateProcess. To call TerminateProcess, you will need a handle to the process with the PROCESS_TERMINATE access right. All of this assumes that you have the privileges needed to perform these actions on the process to be terminated.
One thing to be aware of is that processes and programs - or at least what the user regards as a program - are not necessarily the same thing.
If you use the PSAPI to get a list of all the processes running, you'll see a lot of background process that don't correspond to open windows at all. There's also cases where a single process can have multiple top-level windows open. So while you have simple cases like notepad where once notepad.exe process corresponds to one Notepad window, you also have cases like:
Word, where one word process handles all the word documents currently open (one process, many windows)
Explorer, where a single exploere.exe process handles all the open explorer windows, and also things like control panel windows and the task bar.
Chrome (and other browsers), where each tab gets its own process (many processes, one window!)
Using TerminateProcess is perhaps not the best way to close an app: it's not directly equivalent to clicking the close button. It forcibly terminates the entire process there and then, without giving it any chance to clean up. If you do this on Word, when it restarts, it will go into 'recovery mode', and act as though it hadn't shut down cleanly the last time. It's best left as a last resort if a process has stopped responding. Also, if you TerminateProcess on a process like Word or Explorer, you'll end up closing all windows owned by that process, not just one specific one.
Given all of this, if you want to essentially write some sort of program manager, you might be better off taking a window-centric approach rather than a process centric one. Instead of monitoring running processes, monitor top-level application windows.
There are several ways to listen for changes to windows; SetWinEventHook with EVENT_CREATE/DESTROY is one way to listen for HWNDs being created or destroyed (you'll need to do filtering here, since it will tell you about all HWNDs - and more! - but you only care about top-level ones, and only app ones at that). SetWindowsHookEx may have other options that could work here (WH_CBT). You can also use EnumWindows to list the windows currently present (again, you'll need to filter out owned dialogs and tooltips, currently invisible HWNDs, etc).
Given a HWND, you can get process information if needed by using GetWindowThreadProcessId.
To close a window, sending WM_SYSCOMMAND/SC_CLOSE is the best thing to try first: this is closer to clicking the close button, and it gives the app a chance to clean up. Note that some apps will display a "are you sure you wish to close?" dialog if you haven't saved recently - again, it's consistent with clicking the close button with the mouse.
The most well-known way of doing this on Windows is to use the Process Status API. You can use this API to enumerate processes However, this API is annoying in that it doesn't guarantee you get the full list or processes.
A better way to enumerate processes is using the Tool Help Library, which includes a way to take a complete snapshot of all processes in the system at any given time.
You need the Microsoft PSAPI (Processes API), for example to see the open processes you can use the openProcess function.
Is there a way (in C++ & windows XP) to detect if one process spawns any other processes?
for example,
write.exe in system32 spawns wordpad.exe then disappears, is there a function that tells me if the process is about to do this?
for those interested i solved the problem using this section of msdn:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa390425(v=VS.85).aspx
Nothing in the Win32 API for this. However, it is supported through WMI with the Win32_ProcessStartTrace query. You'll find some C# code that demonstrates the query in my answer in this thread. Writing WMI code in C++ is fairly painful, you'll find a link to boilerplate code you have to write in the MSDN Library article.
Do beware that this isn't particularly fast. It isn't clear to me how much help the WMI provider gets from the kernel to generate the notification but given the speed it quacks like polling. In other words, the process is likely to be well on its way by the time you get the notification. This is otherwise par for the course on a multitasking operating system.
You can enumerate over the process tree, which identifies running processes and their parents. This is the inverse of what you want (you want to identify child processes, not parent processes). But of course by keeping track of parent process IDs while enumerating, you can identify which sub-processes a given process has spawned.
To do this, call CreateToolhelp32Snapshot and then use Process32First and Process32Next to enumerate the processes. The enumeration will fill in a PROCESSENTRY32 struct that contains a th32ParentProcessID member.
This is a polling method; there may be another way of actually hooking the CreateProcess function, but I don’t have any information about that.
I think you would need to make a global hook DLL that attaches itself to every running process. DLL then finds a place where a function call to CreateProcess is mapped to actual CreateProcess from kernel32, and change a table entry to redirect the call to it's own code to "detect" the call to CreateProcess. All this assuming that some user firewall will not prevent your global hook from executing.
I'd like to execute some code whenever a (any!) message box (as spawned by the MessageBox Function) is shown in another process. I didn't start the process I'm monitoring.
I can think of three approaches:
Install a global CBT Hook procedure which tells me whenever a window is created on the desktop. Then, check whether the window belongs to the process I'm monitoring and whether the class name is #32770 (which is the class name of dialogs according to the About Window Classes page at the MSDN). This would probably work, but it would pull the DLL which contains the hook procedure into virtually every process on the desktop, and the hook procedure gets called a lot. It smells like a potential perfomance problem.
Try to subclass the #32770 system window class (is this possible at all?) and look for WM_CREATE messages in my custom window procedure.
Intercept the MessageBox Function API call (even though the remote process is running already!) and call my code from the hook function.
So far, I only know that the first idea is feasible, but it seems really inefficient. Can anybody think of a simpler solution than that to this problem?
I can't think of any efficient solution that doesn't involve injecting code into the other process (this is basically what many types of hooks do by the way). But if you are willing to go down that path, you can intercept calls to MessageBox.
Spend some time stepping through into a call to MessageBox in the debugger in assembly language mode and you'll see that it's an indirect call through a lookup table (that's how exports work). so if you can get your code into the process, you can patch the table to jump to your code instead.
See http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/completeinject.aspx for code showing how to inject a dll into another process.
I think: Approach 2 is impossible. Approaches 1-3 require dll, that is loaded into all processes, and approach 3 is "more right". I suppose searching windows by timer is not suite by some reasons?
I would go with the first option. You should be able to get away with only installing the hook for the main UI thread of the app you're monitoring, but if that doesn't work, even global CBT hooks aren't terribly resource intensive in my experience. Of course, you'll want your hook DLL to contain as little as possible other than the hook logic itself. If you need anything bulky, link it dynamically only when you know you're in the right process.
This is something that's been bothering me a while and there just has to be a solution to this. Every time I call ShellExecute to open an external file (be it a document, executable or a URL) this causes a very long lockup in my program before ShellExecute spawns the new process and returns. Does anyone know how to solve or work around this?
EDIT: And as the tags might indicate, this is on Win32 using C++.
I don't know what is causing it, but Mark Russinovich (of sysinternal's fame) has a really great blog where he explains how to debug these kinds of things. A good one to look at for you would be The Case of the Delayed Windows Vista File Open Dialogs, where he debugged a similar issue using only process explorer (it turned out to be a problem accessing the domain). You can of course do similar things using a regular windows debugger.
You problem is probably not the same as his, but using these techniques may help you get closer to the source of the problem. I suggest invoking the CreateProcess call and then capturing a few stack traces and seeing where it appears to be hung.
The Case of the Process Startup Delays might be even more relevant for you.
Are you multithreaded?
I've seen issues with opening files with ShellExecute. Not executables, but files associated an application - usually MS Office. Applications that used DDE to open their files did some of broadcast of a message to all threads in all (well, I don't know if it was all...) programs. Since I wasn't pumping messages in worker threads in my application I'd hang the shell (and the opening of the file) for some time. It eventually timed out waiting for me to process the message and the application would launch and open the file.
I recall using PeekMessage in a loop to just remove messages in the queue for that worker thread. I always assumed there was a way to avoid this in another way, maybe create the thread differently as to never be the target of messages?
Update
It must have not just been any thread that was doing this but one servicing a window. Raymond (link 1) knows all (link 2). I bet either CoInitialize (single threaded apartment) or something in MFC created a hidden window for the thread.