I have a C++ tool that walks the call stack at one point. In the code, it first gets a copy of the live CPU registers (via RtlCaptureContext()), then uses a few "#ifdef ..." blocks to save the CPU-specific register names into stackframe.AddrPC.Offset, ...AddrStack..., and ...AddrFrame...; also, for each of the 3 Addr... members above, it sets stackframe.Addr....Mode = AddrModeFlat. (This was borrowed from some example code I came across a while back.)
With an x86 binary, this works great. With an x64 binary, though, StackWalk64() passes back bogus addresses. (The first time the API is called, the only blatantly bogus address value appears in AddrReturn ( == 0xFFFFFFFF'FFFFFFFE -- aka StackWalk64()'s 3rd arg, the pseudo-handle returned by GetCurrentThread()). If the API is called a second time, however, all Addr... variables receive bogus addresses.) This happens regardless of how AddrFrame is set:
using either of the recommended x64 "base/frame pointer" CPU registers: rbp (= 0xf), or rdi (= 0x0)
using rsp (didn't expect it to work, but tried it anyway)
setting AddrPC and AddrStack normally, but leaving AddrFrame zeroed out (seen in other example code)
zeroing out all Addr... values, to let StackWalk64() fill them in from the passed-in CPU-register context (seen in other example code)
FWIW, the physical stack buffer's contents are also different on x64 vs. x86 (after accounting for different pointer widths & stack buffer locations, of course). Regardless of the reason, StackWalk64() should still be able to walk the call stack correctly -- heck, the debugger is still able to walk the call stack, and it appears to use StackWalk64() itself behind the scenes. The oddity there is that the (correct) call stack reported by the debugger contains base-address & return-address pointer values whose constituent bytes don't actually exist in the stack buffer (below or above the current stack pointer).
(FWIW #2: Given the stack-buffer strangeness above, I did try disabling ASLR (/dynamicbase:no) to see if it made a difference, but the binary still exhibited the same behavior.)
So. Any ideas why this would work fine on x86, but have problems on x64? Any suggestions on how to fix it?
Given that fs.sf is a STACKFRAME64 structure, you need to initialize it like this before passing it to StackWalk64: (c is a CONTEXT structure)
DWORD machine = IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_AMD64;
RtlCaptureContext (&c);
fs.sf.AddrPC.Offset = c.Rip;
fs.sf.AddrFrame.Offset = c.Rsp;
fs.sf.AddrStack.Offset = c.Rsp;
fs.sf.AddrPC.Mode = AddrModeFlat;
fs.sf.AddrFrame.Mode = AddrModeFlat;
fs.sf.AddrStack.Mode = AddrModeFlat;
This code is taken from ACE (Adaptive Communications Environment), adapted from the StackWalker project on CodeProject.
SymInitialize(process, nullptr, TRUE) must be called (once) before StackWalk64().
FWIW, I've switched to using CaptureStackBackTrace(), and now it works just fine.
Related
I was reading this question because I'm trying to find the size of a function in a C++ program, It is hinted at that there may be a way that is platform specific. My targeted platform is windows
The method I currently have in my head is the following:
1. Obtain a pointer to the function
2. Increment the Pointer (& counter) until I reach the machine code value for ret
3. The counter will be the size of the function?
Edit1: To clarify what I mean by 'size' I mean the number of bytes (machine code) that make up the function.
Edit2: There have been a few comments asking why or what do I plan to do with this. The honest answer is I have no intention, and I can't really see the benefits of knowing a functions length pre-compile time. (although I'm sure there are some)
This seems like a valid method to me, will this work?
Wow, I use function size counting all the time and it has lots and lots of uses. Is it reliable? No way. Is it standard c++? No way. But that's why you need to check it in the disassembler to make sure it worked, every time that you release a new version. Compiler flags can mess up the ordering.
static void funcIwantToCount()
{
// do stuff
}
static void funcToDelimitMyOtherFunc()
{
__asm _emit 0xCC
__asm _emit 0xCC
__asm _emit 0xCC
__asm _emit 0xCC
}
int getlength( void *funcaddress )
{
int length = 0;
for(length = 0; *((UINT32 *)(&((unsigned char *)funcaddress)[length])) != 0xCCCCCCCC; ++length);
return length;
}
It seems to work better with static functions. Global optimizations can kill it.
P.S. I hate people, asking why you want to do this and it's impossible, etc. Stop asking these questions, please. Makes you sound stupid. Programmers are often asked to do non-standard things, because new products almost always push the limits of what's availble. If they don't, your product is probably a rehash of what's already been done. Boring!!!
No, this will not work:
There is no guarantee that your function only contains a single ret instruction.
Even if it only does contain a single ret, you can't just look at the individual bytes - because the corresponding value could appear as simply a value, rather than an instruction.
The first problem can possibly be worked around if you restrict your coding style to, say, only have a single point of return in your function, but the other basically requires a disassembler so you can tell the individual instructions apart.
It is possible to obtain all blocks of a function, but is an unnatural question to ask what is the 'size' of a function. Optimized code will rearrange code blocks in the order of execution and will move seldom used blocks (exception paths) into outer parts of the module. For more details, see Profile-Guided Optimizations for example how Visual C++ achieves this in link time code generation. So a function can start at address 0x00001000, branch at 0x00001100 into a jump at 0x20001000 and a ret, and have some exception handling code 0x20001000. At 0x00001110 another function starts. What is the 'size' of your function? It does span from 0x00001000 to +0x20001000, but it 'owns' only few blocks in that span. So your question should be unasked.
There are other valid questions in this context, like the total number of instructions a function has (can be determined from the program symbol database and from the image), and more importantly, what is the number of instructions in the frequent executed code path inside the function. All these are questions normally asked in the context of performance measurement and there are tools that instrument code and can give very detailed answers.
Chasing pointers in memory and searching for ret will get you nowhere I'm afraid. Modern code is way way way more complex than that.
This won't work... what if there's a jump, a dummy ret, and then the target of the jump? Your code will be fooled.
In general, it's impossible to do this with 100% accuracy because you have to predict all code paths, which is like solving the halting problem. You can get "pretty good" accuracy if you implement your own disassembler, but no solution will be nearly as easy as you imagine.
A "trick" would be to find out which function's code is after the function that you're looking for, which would give pretty good results assuming certain (dangerous) assumptions. But then you'd have to know what function comes after your function, which, after optimizations, is pretty hard to figure out.
Edit 1:
What if the function doesn't even end with a ret instruction at all? It could very well just jmp back to its caller (though it's unlikely).
Edit 2:
Don't forget that x86, at least, has variable-length instructions...
Update:
For those saying that flow analysis isn't the same as solving the halting problem:
Consider what happens when you have code like:
foo:
....
jmp foo
You will have to follow the jump each time to figure out the end of the function, and you cannot ignore it past the first time because you don't know whether or not you're dealing with self-modifying code. (You could have inline assembly in your C++ code that modifies itself, for instance.) It could very well extend to some other place of memory, so your analyzer will (or should) end in an infinite loop, unless you tolerate false negatives.
Isn't that like the halting problem?
I'm posting this to say two things:
1) Most of the answers given here are really bad and will break easily. If you use the C function pointer (using the function name), in a debug build of your executable, and possibly in other circumstances, it may point to a JMP shim that will not have the function body itself. Here's an example. If I do the following for the function I defined below:
FARPROC pfn = (FARPROC)some_function_with_possibility_to_get_its_size_at_runtime;
the pfn I get (for example: 0x7FF724241893) will point to this, which is just a JMP instruction:
Additionally, a compiler can nest several of those shims, or branch your function code so that it will have multiple epilogs, or ret instructions. Heck, it may not even use a ret instruction. Then, there's no guarantee that functions themselves will be compiled and linked in the order you define them in the source code.
You can do all that stuff in assembly language, but not in C or C++.
2) So that above was the bad news. The good news is that the answer to the original question is, yes, there's a way (or a hack) to get the exact function size, but it comes with the following limitations:
It works in 64-bit executables on Windows only.
It is obviously Microsoft specific and is not portable.
You have to do this at run-time.
The concept is simple -- utilize the way SEH is implemented in x64 Windows binaries. Compiler adds details of each function into the PE32+ header (into the IMAGE_DIRECTORY_ENTRY_EXCEPTION directory of the optional header) that you can use to obtain the exact function size. (In case you're wondering, this information is used for catching, handling and unwinding of exceptions in the __try/__except/__finally blocks.)
Here's a quick example:
//You will have to call this when your app initializes and then
//cache the size somewhere in the global variable because it will not
//change after the executable image is built.
size_t fn_size; //Will receive function size in bytes, or 0 if error
some_function_with_possibility_to_get_its_size_at_runtime(&fn_size);
and then:
#include <Windows.h>
//The function itself has to be defined for two types of a call:
// 1) when you call it just to get its size, and
// 2) for its normal operation
bool some_function_with_possibility_to_get_its_size_at_runtime(size_t* p_getSizeOnly = NULL)
{
//This input parameter will define what we want to do:
if(!p_getSizeOnly)
{
//Do this function's normal work
//...
return true;
}
else
{
//Get this function size
//INFO: Works only in 64-bit builds on Windows!
size_t nFnSz = 0;
//One of the reasons why we have to do this at run-time is
//so that we can get the address of a byte inside
//the function body... we'll get it as this thread context:
CONTEXT context = {0};
RtlCaptureContext(&context);
DWORD64 ImgBase = 0;
RUNTIME_FUNCTION* pRTFn = RtlLookupFunctionEntry(context.Rip, &ImgBase, NULL);
if(pRTFn)
{
nFnSz = pRTFn->EndAddress - pRTFn->BeginAddress;
}
*p_getSizeOnly = nFnSz;
return false;
}
}
This can work in very limited scenarios. I use it in part of a code injection utility I wrote. I don't remember where I found the information, but I have the following (C++ in VS2005):
#pragma runtime_checks("", off)
static DWORD WINAPI InjectionProc(LPVOID lpvParameter)
{
// do something
return 0;
}
static DWORD WINAPI InjectionProcEnd()
{
return 0;
}
#pragma runtime_checks("", on)
And then in some other function I have:
size_t cbInjectionProc = (size_t)InjectionProcEnd - (size_t)InjectionProc;
You have to turn off some optimizations and declare the functions as static to get this to work; I don't recall the specifics. I don't know if this is an exact byte count, but it is close enough. The size is only that of the immediate function; it doesn't include any other functions that may be called by that function. Aside from extreme edge cases like this, "the size of a function" is meaningless and useless.
The real solution to this is to dig into your compiler's documentation. The ARM compiler we use can be made to produce an assembly dump (code.dis), from which it's fairly trivial to subtract the offsets between a given mangled function label and the next mangled function label.
I'm not certain which tools you will need for this with a windows target, however. It looks like the tools listed in the answer to this question might be what you're looking for.
Also note that I (working in the embedded space) assumed you were talking about post-compile-analysis. It still might be possible to examine these intermediate files programmatically as part of a build provided that:
The target function is in a different object
The build system has been taught the dependencies
You know for sure that the compiler will build these object files
Note that I'm not sure entirely WHY you want to know this information. I've needed it in the past to be sure that I can fit a particular chunk of code in a very particular place in memory. I have to admit I'm curious what purpose this would have on a more general desktop-OS target.
In C++, the there is no notion of function size. In addition to everything else mentioned, preprocessor macros also make for an indeterminate size. If you want to count number of instruction words, you can't do that in C++, because it doesn't exist until it's been compiled.
What do you mean "size of a function"?
If you mean a function pointer than it is always just 4 bytes for 32bits systems.
If you mean the size of the code than you should just disassemble generated code and find the entry point and closest ret call. One way to do it is to read the instruction pointer register at the beginning and at the end of your function.
If you want to figure out the number of instructions called in the average case for your function you can use profilers and divide the number of retired instructions on the number of calls.
I think it will work on windows programs created with msvc, as for branches the 'ret' seems to always come at the end (even if there are branches that return early it does a jne to go the end).
However you will need some kind of disassembler library to figure the current opcode length as they are variable length for x86. If you don't do this you'll run into false positives.
I would not be surprised if there are cases this doesn't catch.
There is no facilities in Standard C++ to obtain the size or length of a function.
See my answer here: Is it possible to load a function into some allocated memory and run it from there?
In general, knowing the size of a function is used in embedded systems when copying executable code from a read-only source (or a slow memory device, such as a serial Flash) into RAM. Desktop and other operating systems load functions into memory using other techniques, such as dynamic or shared libraries.
Just set PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE at the address where you got your function. Then read every byte. When you got byte "0xCC" it means that the end of function is actual_reading_address - 1.
Using GCC, not so hard at all.
void do_something(void) {
printf("%s!", "Hello your name is Cemetech");
do_something_END:
}
...
printf("size of function do_something: %i", (int)(&&do_something_END - (int)do_something));
below code the get the accurate function block size, it works fine with my test
runtime_checks disable _RTC_CheckEsp in debug mode
#pragma runtime_checks("", off)
DWORD __stdcall loadDll(char* pDllFullPath)
{
OutputDebugStringA(pDllFullPath);
//OutputDebugStringA("loadDll...................\r\n");
return 0;
//return test(pDllFullPath);
}
#pragma runtime_checks("", restore)
DWORD __stdcall getFuncSize_loadDll()
{
DWORD maxSize=(PBYTE)getFuncSize_loadDll-(PBYTE)loadDll;
PBYTE pTail=(PBYTE)getFuncSize_loadDll-1;
while(*pTail != 0xC2 && *pTail != 0xC3) --pTail;
if (*pTail==0xC2)
{ //0xC3 : ret
//0xC2 04 00 : ret 4
pTail +=3;
}
return pTail-(PBYTE)loadDll;
};
The non-portable, but API-based and correctly working approach is to use program database readers - like dbghelp.dll on Windows or readelf on Linux. The usage of those is only possible if debug info is enabled/present along with the program. Here's an example on how it works on Windows:
SYMBOL_INFO symbol = { };
symbol.SizeOfStruct = sizeof(SYMBOL_INFO);
// Implies, that the module is loaded into _dbg_session_handle, see ::SymInitialize & ::SymLoadModule64
::SymFromAddr(_dbg_session_handle, address, 0, &symbol);
You will get the size of the function in symbol.Size, but you may also need additional logic identifying whether the address given is a actually a function, a shim placed there by incremental linker or a DLL call thunk (same thing).
I guess somewhat similar can be done via readelf on Linux, but maybe you'll have to come up with the library on top of its sourcecode...
You must bear in mind that although disassembly-based approach is possible, you'll basically have to analyze a directed graph with endpoints in ret, halt, jmp (PROVIDED you have incremental linking enabled and you're able to read jmp-table to identify whether the jmp you're facing in function is internal to that function (missing in image's jmp-table) or external (present in that table; such jmps frequently occur as part of tail-call optimization on x64, as I know)), any calls that are meant to be nonret (like an exception generating helper), etc.
It's an old question but still...
For Windows x64, functions all have a function table, which contains the offset and the size of the function. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-format . This function table is used for unwinding when an exception is thrown.
That said, this doesn't contain information like inlining, and all the other issues that people already noted...
int GetFuncSizeX86(unsigned char* Func)
{
if (!Func)
{
printf("x86Helper : Function Ptr NULL\n");
return 0;
}
for (int count = 0; ; count++)
{
if (Func[count] == 0xC3)
{
unsigned char prevInstruc = *(Func - 1);
if (Func[1] == 0xCC // int3
|| prevInstruc == 0x5D// pop ebp
|| prevInstruc == 0x5B// pop ebx
|| prevInstruc == 0x5E// pop esi
|| prevInstruc == 0x5F// pop edi
|| prevInstruc == 0xCC// int3
|| prevInstruc == 0xC9)// leave
return count++;
}
}
}
you could use this assumming you are in x86 or x86_64
While looking through the assembly for a console "hello world" program (compiled using the visual c++ compiler), I came across this:
pre_c_init proc near
.text:00401AFE mov eax, 5A4Dh
.text:00401B03 cmp ds:400000h, ax
The code above seems to be accessing memory that isn't filled with anything in particular: All segments start at 0x401000 or even further down in the file. (The image base is at 0x400000, but the first segment is at 0x401000).
I used OllyDbg to see what the actual value at 0x400000 is, and every single time it's the same as in the code (0x5A4D). What's going on here?
5A4D is "MZ" in little-endian ASCII, and MZ is the signature of MS-DOS and, more recently, PE executables.
The comparison checks whether the executable has been mapped at the default base address, 0x400000. This, I believe, is used to determine whether it is necessary to perform relocation.
This is discussed further in the following thread: Why does PE need a relocation table?
The last few days have been spent debugging a very strange problem. An application built for i386 running on Windows crashed, with the top of the callstack completely corrupted and the instruction pointer in a nonsense location.
After some effort, I rebuilt the callstack and was able to determine how the IP ended up in the nonsense location. An instruction in boost shared pointer code attempts to call a function defined in my DLLs import address table using an incorrect offset. The instruction looks like:
call dword ptr [nonsense offset into import address table]
As a result, execution ended up in a bad location that was, unfortunately, executable. Execution then proceeded, gobbling up the top of the stack until eventually crashing.
By launching the identical application on my PC, and stepping into the problematic code, I can find the same call instruction and see it's supposed to by calling msvc100's 'new' operator.
Further comparing the minidump from the client's PC to my PC, I found that my PC was calls a function with an offset of 0x0254 into the address table. On the clients PC, the code is trying to invoke a function with an offset of 0x8254.
What's even more confusing is that this offset is not coming from a register or another memory location. The offset is a constant in the disassembly. So, the disassembly looks like:
call dword ptr [ 0x50018254 ]
not like:
call dword ptr [ edx ]
Does anyone know how this might happen?
That's a single bit flip:
0x0254 = 0b0000001001010100
0x8254 = 0b1000001001010100
Perhaps corrupt memory, corrupt disk, gamma ray from the sun...?
If this specific case is reproducible and their on-disk binary matches yours, I'd investigate further. If it's not specifically reproducible, I'd encourage the client to run some machine diagnostics.
Thats seems to me a hardware error for sure, mainly memory error. As #Hostile_Fork pointed out, is just a bit flip.
Does your memory have ECC feature? it it does it, make sure is enabled. I would pass a burn-in memory test with memtest86 to see what happens, I bet you have a faulty memory chip, doesn't look like a bug.
Often I see ARM stack traces (read: Android NDK stack traces) that terminate with an lr pointer, like so:
#00 pc 001c6c20 /data/data/com.audia.dev.qt/lib/libQtGui.so
#01 lr 80a356cc /data/data/com.audia.dev.rta/lib/librta.so
I know that lr stands for link register on ARM and other architectures, and that it's a quick way to store a return address, but I don't understand why it always seems to store a useless address. In this example, 80a356cc cannot be mapped to any code using addr2line or gdb.
Is there any way to get more information? Why must the trace stop at the lr address anyway?
Stumbled on the answer finally. I just had to be more observant. Look at the following short stack trace and the information that comes after it:
#00 pc 000099d6 /system/lib/libandroid.so
#01 lr 80b6c17c /data/data/com.audia.dev.rta/lib/librta.so
code around pc:
a9d899b4 bf00bd0e 2102b507 aa016d43 28004798
a9d899c4 9801bfa8 bf00bd0e 460eb573 93004615
a9d899d4 6d842105 462b4632 200047a0 bf00bd7c
a9d899e4 b100b510 f7fe3808 2800edf4 f04fbf14
a9d899f4 200030ff bf00bd10 b097b5f0 4614af01
code around lr:
80b6c15c e51b3078 e5933038 e5932024 e51b302c
80b6c16c e1a00002 e3a01000 e3a02000 ebfeee5c
80b6c17c e1a03000 e50b303c e51b303c e1a03fa3
80b6c18c e6ef3073 e3530000 0a000005 e59f34fc
80b6c19c e08f3003 e1a00003 e51b103c ebfeebe6
Now the lr address is still a 80xxxxxx address that isn't useful to us.
The address it prints from the pc is 000099d6, but look at the next section, code around pc. The first column is a list of addresses (you can tell from the fact that it increments by 16 each time.) None of those addresses looks like the pc address, unless you chop off the first 16 bits. Then you'll notice that the a9d899d4 must correspond to 000099d4, and the code where the program stopped is two bytes in from that.
Android's stack trace seems to have "chopped off" the first 2 bytes of the pc address for me, but for whatever reason it does not do it for addresses in the leaf register. Which brings us to the solution:
In short, I was able to chop off the first 16 bits from the 80b6c17c address to make it 0000c17c, and so far that has given me a valid code address every time that I can look up with gdb or addr2line. (edit: I've found it's actually usually the first 12 bits or first 3 hexadecimal digits. You can decide this for yourself by looking at the stack trace output like I described above.) I can confirm that it is the right code address as well. This has definitely made debugging a great bit easier!
Do you have all debugging info (-g3) on?
Gcc likes to use the lr as a normal register. Remember that a non-leaf function looks like
push {lr}
; .. setup args here etc.
bl foo ; call a function foo
; .. work with function results
pop {pc}
Once it pushed lr to the stack, the compiler can use it almost freely - lr will be overwritten only by function calls. So its quite likely that there is any intermediate value in lr.
This should be stated in the debugging information that the compiler generates, in order to let the debugger know it has to look at the stack value instead of lr.
I was reading this question because I'm trying to find the size of a function in a C++ program, It is hinted at that there may be a way that is platform specific. My targeted platform is windows
The method I currently have in my head is the following:
1. Obtain a pointer to the function
2. Increment the Pointer (& counter) until I reach the machine code value for ret
3. The counter will be the size of the function?
Edit1: To clarify what I mean by 'size' I mean the number of bytes (machine code) that make up the function.
Edit2: There have been a few comments asking why or what do I plan to do with this. The honest answer is I have no intention, and I can't really see the benefits of knowing a functions length pre-compile time. (although I'm sure there are some)
This seems like a valid method to me, will this work?
Wow, I use function size counting all the time and it has lots and lots of uses. Is it reliable? No way. Is it standard c++? No way. But that's why you need to check it in the disassembler to make sure it worked, every time that you release a new version. Compiler flags can mess up the ordering.
static void funcIwantToCount()
{
// do stuff
}
static void funcToDelimitMyOtherFunc()
{
__asm _emit 0xCC
__asm _emit 0xCC
__asm _emit 0xCC
__asm _emit 0xCC
}
int getlength( void *funcaddress )
{
int length = 0;
for(length = 0; *((UINT32 *)(&((unsigned char *)funcaddress)[length])) != 0xCCCCCCCC; ++length);
return length;
}
It seems to work better with static functions. Global optimizations can kill it.
P.S. I hate people, asking why you want to do this and it's impossible, etc. Stop asking these questions, please. Makes you sound stupid. Programmers are often asked to do non-standard things, because new products almost always push the limits of what's availble. If they don't, your product is probably a rehash of what's already been done. Boring!!!
No, this will not work:
There is no guarantee that your function only contains a single ret instruction.
Even if it only does contain a single ret, you can't just look at the individual bytes - because the corresponding value could appear as simply a value, rather than an instruction.
The first problem can possibly be worked around if you restrict your coding style to, say, only have a single point of return in your function, but the other basically requires a disassembler so you can tell the individual instructions apart.
It is possible to obtain all blocks of a function, but is an unnatural question to ask what is the 'size' of a function. Optimized code will rearrange code blocks in the order of execution and will move seldom used blocks (exception paths) into outer parts of the module. For more details, see Profile-Guided Optimizations for example how Visual C++ achieves this in link time code generation. So a function can start at address 0x00001000, branch at 0x00001100 into a jump at 0x20001000 and a ret, and have some exception handling code 0x20001000. At 0x00001110 another function starts. What is the 'size' of your function? It does span from 0x00001000 to +0x20001000, but it 'owns' only few blocks in that span. So your question should be unasked.
There are other valid questions in this context, like the total number of instructions a function has (can be determined from the program symbol database and from the image), and more importantly, what is the number of instructions in the frequent executed code path inside the function. All these are questions normally asked in the context of performance measurement and there are tools that instrument code and can give very detailed answers.
Chasing pointers in memory and searching for ret will get you nowhere I'm afraid. Modern code is way way way more complex than that.
This won't work... what if there's a jump, a dummy ret, and then the target of the jump? Your code will be fooled.
In general, it's impossible to do this with 100% accuracy because you have to predict all code paths, which is like solving the halting problem. You can get "pretty good" accuracy if you implement your own disassembler, but no solution will be nearly as easy as you imagine.
A "trick" would be to find out which function's code is after the function that you're looking for, which would give pretty good results assuming certain (dangerous) assumptions. But then you'd have to know what function comes after your function, which, after optimizations, is pretty hard to figure out.
Edit 1:
What if the function doesn't even end with a ret instruction at all? It could very well just jmp back to its caller (though it's unlikely).
Edit 2:
Don't forget that x86, at least, has variable-length instructions...
Update:
For those saying that flow analysis isn't the same as solving the halting problem:
Consider what happens when you have code like:
foo:
....
jmp foo
You will have to follow the jump each time to figure out the end of the function, and you cannot ignore it past the first time because you don't know whether or not you're dealing with self-modifying code. (You could have inline assembly in your C++ code that modifies itself, for instance.) It could very well extend to some other place of memory, so your analyzer will (or should) end in an infinite loop, unless you tolerate false negatives.
Isn't that like the halting problem?
I'm posting this to say two things:
1) Most of the answers given here are really bad and will break easily. If you use the C function pointer (using the function name), in a debug build of your executable, and possibly in other circumstances, it may point to a JMP shim that will not have the function body itself. Here's an example. If I do the following for the function I defined below:
FARPROC pfn = (FARPROC)some_function_with_possibility_to_get_its_size_at_runtime;
the pfn I get (for example: 0x7FF724241893) will point to this, which is just a JMP instruction:
Additionally, a compiler can nest several of those shims, or branch your function code so that it will have multiple epilogs, or ret instructions. Heck, it may not even use a ret instruction. Then, there's no guarantee that functions themselves will be compiled and linked in the order you define them in the source code.
You can do all that stuff in assembly language, but not in C or C++.
2) So that above was the bad news. The good news is that the answer to the original question is, yes, there's a way (or a hack) to get the exact function size, but it comes with the following limitations:
It works in 64-bit executables on Windows only.
It is obviously Microsoft specific and is not portable.
You have to do this at run-time.
The concept is simple -- utilize the way SEH is implemented in x64 Windows binaries. Compiler adds details of each function into the PE32+ header (into the IMAGE_DIRECTORY_ENTRY_EXCEPTION directory of the optional header) that you can use to obtain the exact function size. (In case you're wondering, this information is used for catching, handling and unwinding of exceptions in the __try/__except/__finally blocks.)
Here's a quick example:
//You will have to call this when your app initializes and then
//cache the size somewhere in the global variable because it will not
//change after the executable image is built.
size_t fn_size; //Will receive function size in bytes, or 0 if error
some_function_with_possibility_to_get_its_size_at_runtime(&fn_size);
and then:
#include <Windows.h>
//The function itself has to be defined for two types of a call:
// 1) when you call it just to get its size, and
// 2) for its normal operation
bool some_function_with_possibility_to_get_its_size_at_runtime(size_t* p_getSizeOnly = NULL)
{
//This input parameter will define what we want to do:
if(!p_getSizeOnly)
{
//Do this function's normal work
//...
return true;
}
else
{
//Get this function size
//INFO: Works only in 64-bit builds on Windows!
size_t nFnSz = 0;
//One of the reasons why we have to do this at run-time is
//so that we can get the address of a byte inside
//the function body... we'll get it as this thread context:
CONTEXT context = {0};
RtlCaptureContext(&context);
DWORD64 ImgBase = 0;
RUNTIME_FUNCTION* pRTFn = RtlLookupFunctionEntry(context.Rip, &ImgBase, NULL);
if(pRTFn)
{
nFnSz = pRTFn->EndAddress - pRTFn->BeginAddress;
}
*p_getSizeOnly = nFnSz;
return false;
}
}
This can work in very limited scenarios. I use it in part of a code injection utility I wrote. I don't remember where I found the information, but I have the following (C++ in VS2005):
#pragma runtime_checks("", off)
static DWORD WINAPI InjectionProc(LPVOID lpvParameter)
{
// do something
return 0;
}
static DWORD WINAPI InjectionProcEnd()
{
return 0;
}
#pragma runtime_checks("", on)
And then in some other function I have:
size_t cbInjectionProc = (size_t)InjectionProcEnd - (size_t)InjectionProc;
You have to turn off some optimizations and declare the functions as static to get this to work; I don't recall the specifics. I don't know if this is an exact byte count, but it is close enough. The size is only that of the immediate function; it doesn't include any other functions that may be called by that function. Aside from extreme edge cases like this, "the size of a function" is meaningless and useless.
The real solution to this is to dig into your compiler's documentation. The ARM compiler we use can be made to produce an assembly dump (code.dis), from which it's fairly trivial to subtract the offsets between a given mangled function label and the next mangled function label.
I'm not certain which tools you will need for this with a windows target, however. It looks like the tools listed in the answer to this question might be what you're looking for.
Also note that I (working in the embedded space) assumed you were talking about post-compile-analysis. It still might be possible to examine these intermediate files programmatically as part of a build provided that:
The target function is in a different object
The build system has been taught the dependencies
You know for sure that the compiler will build these object files
Note that I'm not sure entirely WHY you want to know this information. I've needed it in the past to be sure that I can fit a particular chunk of code in a very particular place in memory. I have to admit I'm curious what purpose this would have on a more general desktop-OS target.
In C++, the there is no notion of function size. In addition to everything else mentioned, preprocessor macros also make for an indeterminate size. If you want to count number of instruction words, you can't do that in C++, because it doesn't exist until it's been compiled.
What do you mean "size of a function"?
If you mean a function pointer than it is always just 4 bytes for 32bits systems.
If you mean the size of the code than you should just disassemble generated code and find the entry point and closest ret call. One way to do it is to read the instruction pointer register at the beginning and at the end of your function.
If you want to figure out the number of instructions called in the average case for your function you can use profilers and divide the number of retired instructions on the number of calls.
I think it will work on windows programs created with msvc, as for branches the 'ret' seems to always come at the end (even if there are branches that return early it does a jne to go the end).
However you will need some kind of disassembler library to figure the current opcode length as they are variable length for x86. If you don't do this you'll run into false positives.
I would not be surprised if there are cases this doesn't catch.
There is no facilities in Standard C++ to obtain the size or length of a function.
See my answer here: Is it possible to load a function into some allocated memory and run it from there?
In general, knowing the size of a function is used in embedded systems when copying executable code from a read-only source (or a slow memory device, such as a serial Flash) into RAM. Desktop and other operating systems load functions into memory using other techniques, such as dynamic or shared libraries.
Just set PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE at the address where you got your function. Then read every byte. When you got byte "0xCC" it means that the end of function is actual_reading_address - 1.
Using GCC, not so hard at all.
void do_something(void) {
printf("%s!", "Hello your name is Cemetech");
do_something_END:
}
...
printf("size of function do_something: %i", (int)(&&do_something_END - (int)do_something));
below code the get the accurate function block size, it works fine with my test
runtime_checks disable _RTC_CheckEsp in debug mode
#pragma runtime_checks("", off)
DWORD __stdcall loadDll(char* pDllFullPath)
{
OutputDebugStringA(pDllFullPath);
//OutputDebugStringA("loadDll...................\r\n");
return 0;
//return test(pDllFullPath);
}
#pragma runtime_checks("", restore)
DWORD __stdcall getFuncSize_loadDll()
{
DWORD maxSize=(PBYTE)getFuncSize_loadDll-(PBYTE)loadDll;
PBYTE pTail=(PBYTE)getFuncSize_loadDll-1;
while(*pTail != 0xC2 && *pTail != 0xC3) --pTail;
if (*pTail==0xC2)
{ //0xC3 : ret
//0xC2 04 00 : ret 4
pTail +=3;
}
return pTail-(PBYTE)loadDll;
};
The non-portable, but API-based and correctly working approach is to use program database readers - like dbghelp.dll on Windows or readelf on Linux. The usage of those is only possible if debug info is enabled/present along with the program. Here's an example on how it works on Windows:
SYMBOL_INFO symbol = { };
symbol.SizeOfStruct = sizeof(SYMBOL_INFO);
// Implies, that the module is loaded into _dbg_session_handle, see ::SymInitialize & ::SymLoadModule64
::SymFromAddr(_dbg_session_handle, address, 0, &symbol);
You will get the size of the function in symbol.Size, but you may also need additional logic identifying whether the address given is a actually a function, a shim placed there by incremental linker or a DLL call thunk (same thing).
I guess somewhat similar can be done via readelf on Linux, but maybe you'll have to come up with the library on top of its sourcecode...
You must bear in mind that although disassembly-based approach is possible, you'll basically have to analyze a directed graph with endpoints in ret, halt, jmp (PROVIDED you have incremental linking enabled and you're able to read jmp-table to identify whether the jmp you're facing in function is internal to that function (missing in image's jmp-table) or external (present in that table; such jmps frequently occur as part of tail-call optimization on x64, as I know)), any calls that are meant to be nonret (like an exception generating helper), etc.
It's an old question but still...
For Windows x64, functions all have a function table, which contains the offset and the size of the function. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-format . This function table is used for unwinding when an exception is thrown.
That said, this doesn't contain information like inlining, and all the other issues that people already noted...
int GetFuncSizeX86(unsigned char* Func)
{
if (!Func)
{
printf("x86Helper : Function Ptr NULL\n");
return 0;
}
for (int count = 0; ; count++)
{
if (Func[count] == 0xC3)
{
unsigned char prevInstruc = *(Func - 1);
if (Func[1] == 0xCC // int3
|| prevInstruc == 0x5D// pop ebp
|| prevInstruc == 0x5B// pop ebx
|| prevInstruc == 0x5E// pop esi
|| prevInstruc == 0x5F// pop edi
|| prevInstruc == 0xCC// int3
|| prevInstruc == 0xC9)// leave
return count++;
}
}
}
you could use this assumming you are in x86 or x86_64