I was wondering if its possible / anyone knows any tools out there to compare the execution of two related programs (for example, assignments on a class) to see how similar they are. For example, not to compare the names of functions, but how they use syscalls. One silly case of this would be testing if a C string is printed as (see example below) in more than one case one separate program.
printf("%s",str)
Or as
for (i=0;i<len;i++) printf("%c",str[i]);
I haven´t put much thought into this, but i would imagine that strace / ltrace (maybe even oprofile) would be a good starting point. Particularly, this is for UNIX C / C++ programs.
Thanks.
If you have access to the source code of the two programs, you may build a graph of the functions (each function is a node, and there is an edge from A to B if A calls B()), and compute some graph similarity metrics. This will catch a source code copy made by renaming and reorganizing.
An initial idea would be to use ltrace and strace to log the calls and then use diff on the logs. This would obviously only cover the library an system calls. If you need a more fine granular logging, the oprofile might help.
If you have access to the source code you could instrument your code by compiling it with profiling information and then parse the gcov output after the runs. A pure static source code analysis may be sufficient if your code is not taking different routes depending on external data/state.
I think you can do this kind of thing using valgrind.
A finer-grained version (and depending on what is the access to the program source and what you exactly want in terms of comparison) would be to use kprobes.
Kernel Dynamic Probes (Kprobes) provides a lightweight interface for kernel modules to implant probes and register corresponding probe handlers. A probe is an automated breakpoint that is implanted dynamically in executing (kernel-space) modules without the need to modify their underlying source. Probes are intended to be used as an ad hoc service aid where minimal disruption to the system is required. They are particularly advocated in production environments where the use of interactive debuggers is undesirable. Kprobes also has substantial applicability in test and development environments. During test, faults may be injected or simulated by the probing module. In development, debugging code (for example a printk) may be easily inserted without having to recompile to module under test.
Related
I need to provide my users the ability to write mathematical computations into the program. I plan to have a simple text interface with a few buttons including those to validate the script grammar, save etc.
Here's where it gets interesting. These functions the user is writing need to execute at multi-megabyte line speeds in a communications application. So I need the speed of a compiled language, but the usage of a script. A fully interpreted language just won't cut it.
My idea is to precompile the saved user modules into objects at initialization of the C++ application. I could then use these objects to execute the code when called upon. Here are the workflows I have in mind:
1) Testing(initial writing) of script: Write code in editor, save, compile into object (testing grammar), run with test I/O, Edit Code
2) Use of Code (Normal operation of application): Load script from file, compile script into object, Run object code, Run object code, Run object code, etc.
I've looked into several off the shelf interpreters, but can't find what I'm looking for. I considered JAVA, as it is pretty fast, but I would need to load the JAVA virtual machine, which means passing objects between C and the virtual machine... The interface is the bottleneck here. I really need to create a native C++ object running C++ code if possible. I also need to be able to run the code on multiple processors effectively in a controlled manner.
I'm not looking for the whole explanation on how to pull this off, as I can do my own research. I've been stalled for a couple days here now, however, and I really need a place to start looking.
As a last resort, I will create my own scripting language to fulfill the need, but that seems a waste with all the great interpreters out there. I've also considered taking an existing open source complier and slicing it up for the functionality I need... just not saving the compiled results to disk... I don't know. I would prefer to use a mainline language if possible... but that's not required.
Any help would be appreciated. I know this is not your run of the mill idea I have here, but someone has to have done it before.
Thanks!
P.S.
One thought that just occurred to me while writing this was this: what about using a true C compiler to create object code, save it to disk as a dll library, then reload and run it inside "my" code? Can you do that with MS Visual Studio? I need to look at the licensing of the compiler... how to reload the library dynamically while the main application continues to run... hmmmmm I could then just group the "functions" created by the user into library groups. Ok that's enough of this particular brain dump...
A possible solution could be use gcc (MingW since you are on windows) and build a DLL out of your user defined code. The DLL should export just one function. You can use the win32 API to handle the DLL (LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress etc.) At the end of this job you have a C style function pointer. The problem now are arguments. If your computation has just one parameter you can fo a cast to double (*funct)(double), but if you have many parameters you need to match them.
I think I've found a way to do this using standard C.
1) Standard C needs to be used because when it is compiled into a dll, the resulting interface is cross compatible with multiple compilers. I plan to do my primary development with MS Visual Studio and compile objects in my application using gcc (windows version)
2) I will expose certain variables to the user (inputs and outputs) and standardize them across units. This allows multiple units to be developed with the same interface.
3) The user will only create the inside of the function using standard C syntax and grammar. I will then wrap that function with text to fully define the function and it's environment (remember those variables I intend to expose?) I can also group multiple functions under a single executable unit (dll) using name parameters.
4) When the user wishes to test their function, I dump the dll from memory, compile their code with my wrappers in gcc, and then reload the dll into memory and run it. I would let them define inputs and outputs for testing.
5) Once the test/create step was complete, I have a compiled library created which can be loaded at run time and handled via pointers. The inputs and outputs would be standardized, so I would always know what my I/O was.
6) The only problem with standardized I/O is that some of the inputs and outputs are likely to not be used. I need to see if I can put default values in or something.
So, to sum up:
Think of an app with a text box and a few buttons. You are told that your inputs are named A, B, and C and that your outputs are X, Y, and Z of specified types. You then write a function using standard C code, and with functions from the specified libraries (I'm thinking math etc.)
So now your done... you see a few boxes below to define your input. You fill them in and hit the TEST button. This would wrap your code in a function context, dump the existing dll from memory (if it exists) and compile your code along with any other functions in the same group (another parameter you could define, basically just a name to the user.) It then runs the function using a functional pointer, using the inputs defined in the UI. The outputs are sent to the user so they can determine if their function works. If there are any compilation errors, that would also be outputted to the user.
Now it's time to run for real. Of course I kept track of what functions are where, so I dynamically open the dll, and load all the functions into memory with functional pointers. I start shoving data into one side and the functions give me the answers I need. There would be some overhead to track I/O and to make sure the functions are called in the right order, but the execution would be at compiled machine code speeds... which is my primary requirement.
Now... I have explained what I think will work in two different ways. Can you think of anything that would keep this from working, or perhaps any advice/gotchas/lessons learned that would help me out? Anything from the type of interface to tips on dynamically loading dll's in this manner to using the gcc compiler this way... etc would be most helpful.
Thanks!
Normally If you want to modify LLVM IR, you need to write a pass. However, writing a pass by yourself is an overkill sometimes if a higher level tool could facilitate you.
For example, someone might wish to log every load and store in the program. For that purpose, he would need to inject code that does the logging. Now if there is a higher level tool, it can provide callbacks to us to write what we want. So in this case, for example, it could provide us OnLoad and OnStore functions which we can fill to tell the tool what to do on each load and store. Does such kind of a tool exist?
So basically I want something similar to what is provided by Dynamic Binary Instrumentation tools but that works with LLVM, for compile time code injection.
I think you should consider using PIN instead of LLVM for such things: http://www.pintool.org/
PIN enables you insert instrumentation/analyze code at several granularity levels: instruction, basic block, function, traces and even load/unload of shared libraries. Is may be a way more practical since you won't need to compile the application - so you can analyze programs wich aren't open source for example.
There are version of PIN for windows and linux.
PS: Another tool that seems useful: http://eces.colorado.edu/~blomsted/llvmpin/llvmpin.html
Is it possible to disable system calls when compiling C++ code? And if it is, how would I do that?
And to extend this question a bit. I wish to make program to not be able to interact with operating system, except for file reading and writing. Is it possible to do this?
EDIT: With not be able to interact with OS, I mean to not be able to change anything in OS, like creating, editing or deleting something. My main concern is system calls, which would almost in all cases be intended to be harmful.
This is for grading programs, where I would be running other people code. The programs would usually solve various algorithmic problems, so there is no need for very advanced features. Basic (more or less) STL usage and classic code. There would be no external libraries (like Boost or anything like that) or multiple files.
Yes, it's certainly possible.
Take a look at the source code for geordi to see how it does it. Geordi is an IRC bot that compiles, links and runs C++ code under an environment where most system calls are disabled.
#define system NO_SYSTEM_CALL
If you are ok with macros to generate errors for compilation purpose.
You could use any combination of the following:
create your own library with a dummy function called system and link it with the student code (assuming you control the build steps)
grep the source code (though preprocessing hacks could get around that)
run the built binaries under an unprivileged user id, after chroot etc.
use a virtual machine
invoke the compiler with -Dsystem= (though the student could #undef)
(maybe - have to check the end-user agreement) upload their source to ideone or similar and let their security handle such issues
An program can always invoke system calls, at leased under *nix it can. You could however take a look at SELinux, Apparmor, GRsec this are kernel safeguards which can block certain system calls for an application.
Rationale: In my day-to-day C++ code development, I frequently need to
answer basic questions such as who calls what in a very large C++ code
base that is frequently changing. But, I also need to have some
automated way to exactly identify what the code is doing around a
particular area of code. "grep" tools such as Cscope are useful (and
I use them heavily already), but are not C++-language-aware: They
don't give any way to identify the types and kinds of lexical
environment of a given use of a type or function a such way that is
conducive to automation (even if said automation is limited to
"read-only" operations such as code browsing and navigation, but I'm
asking for much more than that below).
Question: Does there exist already an open-source C/C++-based library
(native, not managed, not Microsoft- or Linux-specific) that can
statically scan or analyze a large tree of C++ code, and can produce
result sets that answer detailed questions such as:
What functions are called by some supplied function?
What functions make use of this supplied type?
Ditto the above questions if C++ classes or class templates are involved.
The result set should provide some sort of "handle". I should be able
to feed that handle back to the library to perform the following types
of introspection:
What is the byte offset into the file where the reference was made?
What is the reference into the abstract syntax tree (AST) of that
reference, so that I can inspect surrounding code constructs? And
each AST entity would also have file path, byte-offset, and
type-info data associated with it, so that I could recursively walk
up the graph of callers or referrers to do useful operations.
The answer should meet the following requirements:
API: The API exposed must be one of the following:
C or C++ and probably is "C handle" or C++-class-instance-based
(and if it is, must be generic C o C++ code and not Microsoft- or
Linux-specific code constructs unless it is to meet specifics of
the given platform), or
Command-line standard input and standard output based.
C++ aware: Is not limited to C code, but understands C++ language
constructs in minute detail including awareness of inter-class
inheritance relationships and C++ templates.
Fast: Should scan large code bases significantly faster than
compiling the entire code base from scratch. This probably needs to
be relaxed, but only if Incremental result retrieval and Resilient
to small code changes requirements are fully met below.
Provide Result counts: I should be able to ask "How many results
would you provide to some request (and no don't send me all of the
results)?" that responds on the order of less than 3 seconds versus
having to retrieve all results for any given question. If it takes
too long to get that answer, then wastes development time. This is
coupled with the next requirement.
Incremental result retrieval: I should be able to then ask "Give me
just the next N results of this request", and then a handle to the
result set so that I can ask the question repeatedly, thus
incrementally pulling out the results in stages. This means I
should not have to wait for the entire result set before seeing
some subset of all of the results. And that I can cancel the
operation safely if I have seen enough results. Reason: I need to
answer the question: "What is the build or development impact of
changing some particular function signature?"
Resilient to small code changes: If I change a header or source
file, I should not have to wait for the entire code base to be
rescanned, but only that header or source file
rescanned. Rescanning should be quick. E.g., don't do what cscope
requires you to do, which is to rescan the entire code base for
small changes. It is understood that if you change a header, then
scanning can take longer since other files that include that header
would have to be rescanned.
IDE Agnostic: Is text editor agnostic (don't make me use a specific
text editor; I've made my choice already, thank you!)
Platform Agnostic: Is platform-agnostic (don't make me only use it
on Linux or only on Windows, as I have to use both of those
platforms in my daily grind, but I need the tool to be useful on
both as I have code sandboxes on both platforms).
Non-binary: Should not cost me anything other than time to download
and compile the library and all of its dependencies.
Not trial-ware.
Actively Supported: It is likely that sending help requests to mailing lists
or associated forums is likely to get a response in less than 2
days.
Network agnostic: Databases the library builds should be able to be used directly on
a network from 32-bit and 64-bit systems, both Linux and Windows
interchangeably, at the same time, and do not embed hardcoded paths
to filesystems that would otherwise "root" the database to a
particular network.
Build environment agnostic: Does not require intimate knowledge of my build environment, with
the notable exception of possibly requiring knowledge of compiler
supplied CPP macro definitions (e.g. -Dmacro=value).
I would say that CLang Index is a close fit. However I don't think that it stores data in a database.
Anyway the CLang framework offer what you actually need to build a tool tailored to your needs, if only because of its C, C++ and Objective-C parsing / indexing capabitilies. And since it's provided as a set of reusable libraries... it was crafted for being developed on!
I have to admit that I haven't used either because I work with a lot of Microsoft-specific code that uses Microsoft compiler extensions that i don't expect them to understand, but the two open source analyzers I'm aware of are Mozilla Pork and the Clang Analyzer.
If you are looking for results of code analysis (metrics, graphs, ...) why not use a tool (instead of API) to do that? If you can, I suggest you to take a look at Understand.
It's not free (there's a trial version) but I found it very useful.
Maybe Doxygen with GraphViz could be the answer of some of your constraints but not all,for example the analysis of Doxygen is not incremental.
I'm thinking about adding code to my application that would gather diagnostic information for later examination. Is there any C++ library created for such purpose? What I'm trying to do is similar to profiling, but it's not the same, because gathered data will be used more for debugging than profiling.
EDIT:
Platform: Linux
Diagnostic information to gather: information resulting from application logic, various asserts and statistics.
You might also want to check out libcwd:
Libcwd is a thread-safe, full-featured debugging support library for C++
developers. It includes ostream-based debug output with custom debug
channels and devices, powerful memory allocation debugging support, as well
as run-time support for printing source file:line number information
and demangled type names.
List of features
Tutorial
Quick Reference
Reference Manual
Also, another interesting logging library is pantheios:
Pantheios is an Open Source C/C++ Logging API library, offering an
optimal combination of 100% type-safety, efficiency, genericity
and extensibility. It is simple to use and extend, highly-portable (platform
and compiler-independent) and, best of all, it upholds the C tradition of you
only pay for what you use.
I tend to use logging for this purpose. Log4cxx works like a charm.
If debugging is what you're doing, perhaps use a debugger. GDB scripts are pretty easy to write up and use. Maintaining them in parallel to your code might be challenging.
Edit - Appending Annecdote:
The software I maintain includes a home-grown instrumentation system. Macros are used to queue log messages and configuration options control what classes of messages are logged and the level of detail to be logged. A thread processes the logging queue, flushing messages to file and rotating files as they become too large (which they commonly do). The system provides a lot of detail, but often all too often it provides huge files our support engineers must wade through for hours to find anything useful.
Now, I've only used GDB to diagnose bugs a few times, but for those issues it had a few nice advantages over the logging system. GDB scripting allowed me to gather new instrumentation data without adding new instrumentation lines and deploying a new build of my software to the client. GDB can generate messages from third-party libraries (needed to debug into openssl at one point). GDB adds no run-time impact to the software when not in use. GDB does a pretty good job of printing the contents of objects; the code-level logging system requires new macros to be written when new objects need to have their states logged.
One of the drawbacks was that the gdb scripts I generated had no explicit relationship to the source code; the source file and the gdb script were developed independently. Ideally, changes to the source file should impact and update the gdb script. One thought is to put specially-formatted comments in code and have a scripting language make a pass on the source files to generate the debugger script file for the source file. Finally, have the makefile execute this script during the build cycle.
It's a fun exercise to think about the potential of using GDB for this purpose, but I must admit that there are probably better code-level solutions out there.
If you execute your application in Linux, you can use "ulimit" to generate a core when your application crash (or assert(false), or kill -6 ), later, you can debug with gdb (gdb -c core_file binary_file) and analyze the stack.
Salu2.
PD. for profiling, use gprof