Related
In C on a small embedded system, is there any reason not to do this:
const char * filter_something(const char * original, const int max_length)
{
static char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
// checking inputs for safety omitted
// copy input to buffer here with appropriate filtering etc
return buffer;
}
this is essentially a utility function the source is FLASH memory which may be corrupted, we do a kind of "safe copy" to make sure we have a null terminated string. I chose to use a static buffer and make it available read only to the caller.
A colleague is telling me that I am somehow not respecting the scope of the buffer by doing this, to me it makes perfect sense for the use case we have.
I really do not see any reason not to do this. Can anyone give me one?
(LATER EDIT)
Many thanks to all who responded. You have generally confirmed my ideas on this, which I am grateful for. I was looking for major reasons not to do this, I don't think that there are any. To clarify a few points:
rentrancy/thread safety is not a concern. It is a small (bare metal) embedded system with a single run loop. This code will not be called from ISRs, ever.
in this system we are not short on memory, but we do want very predictable behavior. For this reason I prefer declaring an object like this statically, even though it might be a little "wasteful". We have already had issues with large objects declared carelessly on the stack, which caused intermittent crashes (now fixed but it took a while to diagnose). So in general, I am preferring static allocation, simply to have very predictability, reliability, and less potential issues downstream.
So basically it's a case of taking a certain approach for a specific system design.
Pro
The behavior is well defined; the static buffer exists for the duration of the program and may be used by the program after filter_something returns.
Cons
Returning a static buffer is prone to error because people writing calls to the routines may neglect or be unaware that a static buffer is returned. This can lead to attempts to use multiple instances of the buffer from multiple calls to the function (in the same thread or different threads). Clear documentation is essential.
The static buffer exists for the duration of the program, so it occupies space at times when it may not be needed.
It really depends on how filter_something is used. Take the following as an example
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
const char* filter(const char* original, const int max_length)
{
static char buffer[1024];
memset(buffer, 0, sizeof(buffer));
memcpy(buffer, original, max_length);
return buffer;
}
int main()
{
const char *strone, *strtwo;
char deepone[16], deeptwo[16];
/* Case 1 */
printf("%s\n", filter("everybody", 10));
/* Case 2 */
printf("%s %s %s\n", filter("nobody", 7), filter("somebody", 9), filter("anybody", 8));
/* Case 2 */
if (strcmp(filter("same",5), filter("different", 10)) == 0)
printf("Strings same\n");
else
printf("Strings different\n");
/* Case 3 - Both of these end up with the same pointer */
strone = filter("same",5);
strtwo = filter("different", 10);
if (strcmp(strone, strtwo) == 0)
printf("Strings same\n");
else
printf("Strings different\n");
/* Case 4 - You need a deep copy if you wish to compare */
strcpy(deepone, filter("same", 5));
strcpy(deeptwo, filter("different", 10));
if (strcmp(deepone, deeptwo) == 0)
printf("Strings same\n");
else
printf("Strings different\n");
}
The output when gcc is used is
everybody
nobody nobody nobody
Strings same
Strings same
Strings different.
When filter is used by itself, it behaves quite well.
When it is used multiple times in an expression, the behaviour is undefined there is no telling what it will do. All instances will use the contents the last time the filter was executed. This depends on the order in which the execution was performed.
If an instance is taken, the contents of the instance will not stay the same as when the instance was taken. This is also a common problem when C++ coders switch to C# or Java.
If a deep copy of the instance is taken, then the contents of the instance when the instance was taken will be preserved.
In C++, this technique is often used when returning objects with the same consequences.
It is true that the identifier buffer only has scope local to the block in which it is declared. However, because it is declared static, its lifetime is that of the full program.
So returning a pointer to a static variable is valid. In fact, many standard functions do this such as strtok and ctime.
The one thing you need to watch for is that such a function is not reentrant. For example, if you do something like this:
printf("filter 1: %s, filter 2: %s\n",
filter_something("abc", 3), filter_something("xyz", 3));
The two function calls can occur in any order, and both return the same pointer, so you'll get the same result printed twice (i.e. the result of whatever call happens to occur last) instead of two different results.
Also, if such a function is called from two different threads, you end up with a race condition with the threads reading/writing the same place.
Just to add to the previous answers, I think the problem, in a more abstract sense, is to make the filtering result broader in scope than it ought to be. You introduce a 'state' which seems useless, at least if the caller's intention is only to get a filtered string. In this case, it should be the caller who should create the array, likely on the stack, and pass it as a parameter to the filtering method. It is the introduction of this state that makes possible all the problems referred to in the preceding responses.
From a program design, it's frowned upon to return pointers to private data, in case that data was made private for a reason. That being said, it's less bad design to return a pointer to a local static then it is to use spaghetti programming with "globals" (external linkage). Particularly when the pointer returned is const qualified.
One general issue with staticvariables, that may or may not be a problem regardless of embedded or hosted system is re-entrancy. If the code needs to be interrupt/thread safe, then you need to implement means to achieve that.
The obvious alternative to it all is caller allocation and you've got to ask yourself why that's not an option:
void filter_something (size_t size, char dest[size], const char original[size]);
(Or if you will, [restrict size] on both pointers for a mini-optimization.)
Is there any way to determine (programatically, of course) if a given pointer is "valid"? Checking for NULL is easy, but what about things like 0x00001234? When trying to dereference this kind of pointer an exception/crash occurs.
A cross-platform method is preferred, but platform-specific (for Windows and Linux) is also ok.
Update for clarification:
The problem is not with stale/freed/uninitialized pointers; instead, I'm implementing an API that takes pointers from the caller (like a pointer to a string, a file handle, etc.). The caller can send (in purpose or by mistake) an invalid value as the pointer. How do I prevent a crash?
Update for clarification: The problem is not with stale, freed or uninitialized pointers; instead, I'm implementing an API that takes pointers from the caller (like a pointer to a string, a file handle, etc.). The caller can send (in purpose or by mistake) an invalid value as the pointer. How do I prevent a crash?
You can't make that check. There is simply no way you can check whether a pointer is "valid". You have to trust that when people use a function that takes a pointer, those people know what they are doing. If they pass you 0x4211 as a pointer value, then you have to trust it points to address 0x4211. And if they "accidentally" hit an object, then even if you would use some scary operation system function (IsValidPtr or whatever), you would still slip into a bug and not fail fast.
Start using null pointers for signaling this kind of thing and tell the user of your library that they should not use pointers if they tend to accidentally pass invalid pointers, seriously :)
Here are three easy ways for a C program under Linux to get introspective about the status of the memory in which it is running, and why the question has appropriate sophisticated answers in some contexts.
After calling getpagesize() and rounding the pointer to a page
boundary, you can call mincore() to find out if a page is valid and
if it happens to be part of the process working set. Note that this requires
some kernel resources, so you should benchmark it and determine if
calling this function is really appropriate in your api. If your api
is going to be handling interrupts, or reading from serial ports
into memory, it is appropriate to call this to avoid unpredictable
behaviors.
After calling stat() to determine if there is a /proc/self directory available, you can fopen and read through /proc/self/maps
to find information about the region in which a pointer resides.
Study the man page for proc, the process information pseudo-file
system. Obviously this is relatively expensive, but you might be
able to get away with caching the result of the parse into an array
you can efficiently lookup using a binary search. Also consider the
/proc/self/smaps. If your api is for high-performance computing then
the program will want to know about the /proc/self/numa which is
documented under the man page for numa, the non-uniform memory
architecture.
The get_mempolicy(MPOL_F_ADDR) call is appropriate for high performance computing api work where there are multiple threads of
execution and you are managing your work to have affinity for non-uniform memory
as it relates to the cpu cores and socket resources. Such an api
will of course also tell you if a pointer is valid.
Under Microsoft Windows there is the function QueryWorkingSetEx that is documented under the Process Status API (also in the NUMA API).
As a corollary to sophisticated NUMA API programming this function will also let you do simple "testing pointers for validity (C/C++)" work, as such it is unlikely to be deprecated for at least 15 years.
Preventing a crash caused by the caller sending in an invalid pointer is a good way to make silent bugs that are hard to find.
Isn't it better for the programmer using your API to get a clear message that his code is bogus by crashing it rather than hiding it?
On Win32/64 there is a way to do this. Attempt to read the pointer and catch the resulting SEH exeception that will be thrown on failure. If it doesn't throw, then it's a valid pointer.
The problem with this method though is that it just returns whether or not you can read data from the pointer. It makes no guarantee about type safety or any number of other invariants. In general this method is good for little else other than to say "yes, I can read that particular place in memory at a time that has now passed".
In short, Don't do this ;)
Raymond Chen has a blog post on this subject: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/06/25/3507294.aspx
AFAIK there is no way. You should try to avoid this situation by always setting pointers to NULL after freeing memory.
On Unix you should be able to utilize a kernel syscall that does pointer checking and returns EFAULT, such as:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
bool isPointerBad( void * p )
{
int fh = open( p, 0, 0 );
int e = errno;
if ( -1 == fh && e == EFAULT )
{
printf( "bad pointer: %p\n", p );
return true;
}
else if ( fh != -1 )
{
close( fh );
}
printf( "good pointer: %p\n", p );
return false;
}
int main()
{
int good = 4;
isPointerBad( (void *)3 );
isPointerBad( &good );
isPointerBad( "/tmp/blah" );
return 0;
}
returning:
bad pointer: 0x3
good pointer: 0x7fff375fd49c
good pointer: 0x400793
There's probably a better syscall to use than open() [perhaps access], since there's a chance that this could lead to actual file creation codepath, and a subsequent close requirement.
Regarding the answer a bit up in this thread:
IsBadReadPtr(), IsBadWritePtr(), IsBadCodePtr(), IsBadStringPtr() for Windows.
My advice is to stay away from them, someone has already posted this one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/06/25/3507294.aspx
Another post on the same topic and by the same author (I think) is this one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/09/27/773741.aspx ("IsBadXxxPtr should really be called CrashProgramRandomly").
If the users of your API sends in bad data, let it crash. If the problem is that the data passed isn't used until later (and that makes it harder to find the cause), add a debug mode where the strings etc. are logged at entry. If they are bad it will be obvious (and probably crash). If it is happening way to often, it might be worth moving your API out of process and let them crash the API process instead of the main process.
Firstly, I don't see any point in trying to protect yourself from the caller deliberately trying to cause a crash. They could easily do this by trying to access through an invalid pointer themselves. There are many other ways - they could just overwrite your memory or the stack. If you need to protect against this sort of thing then you need to be running in a separate process using sockets or some other IPC for communication.
We write quite a lot of software that allows partners/customers/users to extend functionality. Inevitably any bug gets reported to us first so it is useful to be able to easily show that the problem is in the plug-in code. Additionally there are security concerns and some users are more trusted than others.
We use a number of different methods depending on performance/throughput requirements and trustworthyness. From most preferred:
separate processes using sockets (often passing data as text).
separate processes using shared memory (if large amounts of data to pass).
same process separate threads via message queue (if frequent short messages).
same process separate threads all passed data allocated from a memory pool.
same process via direct procedure call - all passed data allocated from a memory pool.
We try never to resort to what you are trying to do when dealing with third party software - especially when we are given the plug-ins/library as binary rather than source code.
Use of a memory pool is quite easy in most circumstances and needn't be inefficient. If YOU allocate the data in the first place then it is trivial to check the pointers against the values you allocated. You could also store the length allocated and add "magic" values before and after the data to check for valid data type and data overruns.
I've got a lot of sympathy with your question, as I'm in an almost identical position myself. I appreciate what a lot of the replies are saying, and they are correct - the routine supplying the pointer should be providing a valid pointer. In my case, it is almost inconceivable that they could have corrupted the pointer - but if they had managed, it would be MY software that crashes, and ME that would get the blame :-(
My requirement isn't that I continue after a segmentation fault - that would be dangerous - I just want to report what happened to the customer before terminating so that they can fix their code rather than blaming me!
This is how I've found to do it (on Windows): http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/csignal/signal/
To give a synopsis:
#include <signal.h>
using namespace std;
void terminate(int param)
/// Function executed if a segmentation fault is encountered during the cast to an instance.
{
cerr << "\nThe function received a corrupted reference - please check the user-supplied dll.\n";
cerr << "Terminating program...\n";
exit(1);
}
...
void MyFunction()
{
void (*previous_sigsegv_function)(int);
previous_sigsegv_function = signal(SIGSEGV, terminate);
<-- insert risky stuff here -->
signal(SIGSEGV, previous_sigsegv_function);
}
Now this appears to behave as I would hope (it prints the error message, then terminates the program) - but if someone can spot a flaw, please let me know!
There are no provisions in C++ to test for the validity of a pointer as a general case. One can obviously assume that NULL (0x00000000) is bad, and various compilers and libraries like to use "special values" here and there to make debugging easier (For example, if I ever see a pointer show up as 0xCECECECE in visual studio I know I did something wrong) but the truth is that since a pointer is just an index into memory it's near impossible to tell just by looking at the pointer if it's the "right" index.
There are various tricks that you can do with dynamic_cast and RTTI such to ensure that the object pointed to is of the type that you want, but they all require that you are pointing to something valid in the first place.
If you want to ensure that you program can detect "invalid" pointers then my advice is this: Set every pointer you declare either to NULL or a valid address immediately upon creation and set it to NULL immediately after freeing the memory that it points to. If you are diligent about this practice, then checking for NULL is all you ever need.
Setting the pointer to NULL before and after using is a good technique. This is easy to do in C++ if you manage pointers within a class for example (a string):
class SomeClass
{
public:
SomeClass();
~SomeClass();
void SetText( const char *text);
char *GetText() const { return MyText; }
void Clear();
private:
char * MyText;
};
SomeClass::SomeClass()
{
MyText = NULL;
}
SomeClass::~SomeClass()
{
Clear();
}
void SomeClass::Clear()
{
if (MyText)
free( MyText);
MyText = NULL;
}
void SomeClass::Settext( const char *text)
{
Clear();
MyText = malloc( strlen(text));
if (MyText)
strcpy( MyText, text);
}
Indeed, something could be done under specific occasion: for example if you want to check whether a string pointer string is valid, using write(fd, buf, szie) syscall can help you do the magic: let fd be a file descriptor of temporary file you create for test, and buf pointing to the string you are tesing, if the pointer is invalid write() would return -1 and errno set to EFAULT which indicating that buf is outside your accessible address space.
Peeter Joos answer is pretty good. Here is an "official" way to do it:
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <unistd.h>
bool is_pointer_valid(void *p) {
/* get the page size */
size_t page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
/* find the address of the page that contains p */
void *base = (void *)((((size_t)p) / page_size) * page_size);
/* call msync, if it returns non-zero, return false */
int ret = msync(base, page_size, MS_ASYNC) != -1;
return ret ? ret : errno != ENOMEM;
}
There isn't any portable way of doing this, and doing it for specific platforms can be anywhere between hard and impossible. In any case, you should never write code that depends on such a check - don't let the pointers take on invalid values in the first place.
As others have said, you can't reliably detect an invalid pointer. Consider some of the forms an invalid pointer might take:
You could have a null pointer. That's one you could easily check for and do something about.
You could have a pointer to somewhere outside of valid memory. What constitutes valid memory varies depending on how the run-time environment of your system sets up the address space. On Unix systems, it is usually a virtual address space starting at 0 and going to some large number of megabytes. On embedded systems, it could be quite small. It might not start at 0, in any case. If your app happens to be running in supervisor mode or the equivalent, then your pointer might reference a real address, which may or may not be backed up with real memory.
You could have a pointer to somewhere inside your valid memory, even inside your data segment, bss, stack or heap, but not pointing at a valid object. A variant of this is a pointer that used to point to a valid object, before something bad happened to the object. Bad things in this context include deallocation, memory corruption, or pointer corruption.
You could have a flat-out illegal pointer, such as a pointer with illegal alignment for the thing being referenced.
The problem gets even worse when you consider segment/offset based architectures and other odd pointer implementations. This sort of thing is normally hidden from the developer by good compilers and judicious use of types, but if you want to pierce the veil and try to outsmart the operating system and compiler developers, well, you can, but there is not one generic way to do it that will handle all of the issues you might run into.
The best thing you can do is allow the crash and put out some good diagnostic information.
In general, it's impossible to do. Here's one particularly nasty case:
struct Point2d {
int x;
int y;
};
struct Point3d {
int x;
int y;
int z;
};
void dump(Point3 *p)
{
printf("[%d %d %d]\n", p->x, p->y, p->z);
}
Point2d points[2] = { {0, 1}, {2, 3} };
Point3d *p3 = reinterpret_cast<Point3d *>(&points[0]);
dump(p3);
On many platforms, this will print out:
[0 1 2]
You're forcing the runtime system to incorrectly interpret bits of memory, but in this case it's not going to crash, because the bits all make sense. This is part of the design of the language (look at C-style polymorphism with struct inaddr, inaddr_in, inaddr_in6), so you can't reliably protect against it on any platform.
It's unbelievable how much misleading information you can read in articles above...
And even in microsoft msdn documentation IsBadPtr is claimed to be banned. Oh well - I prefer working application rather than crashing. Even if term working might be working incorrectly (as long as end-user can continue with application).
By googling I haven't found any useful example for windows - found a solution for 32-bit apps,
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Content/ViewAssociatedFile.aspx?rzp=%2FKB%2Fsystem%2Fdetect-driver%2F%2FDetectDriverSrc.zip&zep=DetectDriverSrc%2FDetectDriver%2Fsrc%2FdrvCppLib%2Frtti.cpp&obid=58895&obtid=2&ovid=2
but I need also to support 64-bit apps, so this solution did not work for me.
But I've harvested wine's source codes, and managed to cook similar kind of code which would work for 64-bit apps as well - attaching code here:
#include <typeinfo.h>
typedef void (*v_table_ptr)();
typedef struct _cpp_object
{
v_table_ptr* vtable;
} cpp_object;
#ifndef _WIN64
typedef struct _rtti_object_locator
{
unsigned int signature;
int base_class_offset;
unsigned int flags;
const type_info *type_descriptor;
//const rtti_object_hierarchy *type_hierarchy;
} rtti_object_locator;
#else
typedef struct
{
unsigned int signature;
int base_class_offset;
unsigned int flags;
unsigned int type_descriptor;
unsigned int type_hierarchy;
unsigned int object_locator;
} rtti_object_locator;
#endif
/* Get type info from an object (internal) */
static const rtti_object_locator* RTTI_GetObjectLocator(void* inptr)
{
cpp_object* cppobj = (cpp_object*) inptr;
const rtti_object_locator* obj_locator = 0;
if (!IsBadReadPtr(cppobj, sizeof(void*)) &&
!IsBadReadPtr(cppobj->vtable - 1, sizeof(void*)) &&
!IsBadReadPtr((void*)cppobj->vtable[-1], sizeof(rtti_object_locator)))
{
obj_locator = (rtti_object_locator*) cppobj->vtable[-1];
}
return obj_locator;
}
And following code can detect whether pointer is valid or not, you need probably to add some NULL checking:
CTest* t = new CTest();
//t = (CTest*) 0;
//t = (CTest*) 0x12345678;
const rtti_object_locator* ptr = RTTI_GetObjectLocator(t);
#ifdef _WIN64
char *base = ptr->signature == 0 ? (char*)RtlPcToFileHeader((void*)ptr, (void**)&base) : (char*)ptr - ptr->object_locator;
const type_info *td = (const type_info*)(base + ptr->type_descriptor);
#else
const type_info *td = ptr->type_descriptor;
#endif
const char* n =td->name();
This gets class name from pointer - I think it should be enough for your needs.
One thing which I'm still afraid is performance of pointer checking - in code snipet above there is already 3-4 API calls being made - might be overkill for time critical applications.
It would be good if someone could measure overhead of pointer checking compared for example to C#/managed c++ calls.
It is not a very good policy to accept arbitrary pointers as input parameters in a public API. It's better to have "plain data" types like an integer, a string or a struct (I mean a classical struct with plain data inside, of course; officially anything can be a struct).
Why? Well because as others say there is no standard way to know whether you've been given a valid pointer or one that points to junk.
But sometimes you don't have the choice - your API must accept a pointer.
In these cases, it is the duty of the caller to pass a good pointer. NULL may be accepted as a value, but not a pointer to junk.
Can you double-check in any way? Well, what I did in a case like that was to define an invariant for the type the pointer points to, and call it when you get it (in debug mode). At least if the invariant fails (or crashes) you know that you were passed a bad value.
// API that does not allow NULL
void PublicApiFunction1(Person* in_person)
{
assert(in_person != NULL);
assert(in_person->Invariant());
// Actual code...
}
// API that allows NULL
void PublicApiFunction2(Person* in_person)
{
assert(in_person == NULL || in_person->Invariant());
// Actual code (must keep in mind that in_person may be NULL)
}
Following does work in Windows (somebody suggested it before):
static void copy(void * target, const void* source, int size)
{
__try
{
CopyMemory(target, source, size);
}
__except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
doSomething(--whatever--);
}
}
The function has to be static, standalone or static method of some class.
To test on read-only, copy data in the local buffer.
To test on write without modifying contents, write them over.
You can test first/last addresses only.
If pointer is invalid, control will be passed to 'doSomething',
and then outside the brackets.
Just do not use anything requiring destructors, like CString.
On Windows I use this code:
void * G_pPointer = NULL;
const char * G_szPointerName = NULL;
void CheckPointerIternal()
{
char cTest = *((char *)G_pPointer);
}
bool CheckPointerIternalExt()
{
bool bRet = false;
__try
{
CheckPointerIternal();
bRet = true;
}
__except (EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
}
return bRet;
}
void CheckPointer(void * A_pPointer, const char * A_szPointerName)
{
G_pPointer = A_pPointer;
G_szPointerName = A_szPointerName;
if (!CheckPointerIternalExt())
throw std::runtime_error("Invalid pointer " + std::string(G_szPointerName) + "!");
}
Usage:
unsigned long * pTest = (unsigned long *) 0x12345;
CheckPointer(pTest, "pTest"); //throws exception
On macOS, you can do this with mach_vm_region, which as well as telling you if a pointer is valid, also lets you validate what access you have to the memory to which the pointer points (read/write/execute). I provided sample code to do this in my answer to another question:
#include <mach/mach.h>
#include <mach/mach_vm.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
bool ptr_is_valid(void *ptr, vm_prot_t needs_access) {
vm_map_t task = mach_task_self();
mach_vm_address_t address = (mach_vm_address_t)ptr;
mach_vm_size_t size = 0;
vm_region_basic_info_data_64_t info;
mach_msg_type_number_t count = VM_REGION_BASIC_INFO_COUNT_64;
mach_port_t object_name;
kern_return_t ret = mach_vm_region(task, &address, &size, VM_REGION_BASIC_INFO_64, (vm_region_info_t)&info, &count, &object_name);
if (ret != KERN_SUCCESS) return false;
return ((mach_vm_address_t)ptr) >= address && ((info.protection & needs_access) == needs_access);
}
#define TEST(ptr,acc) printf("ptr_is_valid(%p,access=%d)=%d\n", (void*)(ptr), (acc), ptr_is_valid((void*)(ptr),(acc)))
int main(int argc, char**argv) {
TEST(0,0);
TEST(0,VM_PROT_READ);
TEST(123456789,VM_PROT_READ);
TEST(main,0);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_READ);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_READ|VM_PROT_EXECUTE);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_EXECUTE);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_WRITE);
TEST((void*)(-1),0);
return 0;
}
The SEI CERT C Coding Standard recommendation MEM10-C. Define and use a pointer validation function says it is possible to do a check to some degree, especially under Linux OS.
The method described in the link is to keep track of the highest memory address returned by malloc and add a function that tests if someone tries to use a pointer greater than that value. It is probably of limited use.
IsBadReadPtr(), IsBadWritePtr(), IsBadCodePtr(), IsBadStringPtr() for Windows.
These take time proportional to the length of the block, so for sanity check I just check the starting address.
I have seen various libraries use some method to check for unreferenced memory and such. I believe they simply "override" the memory allocation and deallocation methods (malloc/free), which has some logic that keeps track of the pointers. I suppose this is overkill for your use case, but it would be one way to do it.
Technically you can override operator new (and delete) and collect information about all allocated memory, so you can have a method to check if heap memory is valid.
but:
you still need a way to check if pointer is allocated on stack ()
you will need to define what is 'valid' pointer:
a) memory on that address is
allocated
b) memory at that address
is start address of object (e.g.
address not in the middle of huge
array)
c) memory at that address
is start address of object of expected type
Bottom line: approach in question is not C++ way, you need to define some rules which ensure that function receives valid pointers.
There is no way to make that check in C++. What should you do if other code passes you an invalid pointer? You should crash. Why? Check out this link: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/09/27/773741.aspx
Addendum to the accpeted answer(s):
Assume that your pointer could hold only three values -- 0, 1 and -1 where 1 signifies a valid pointer, -1 an invalid one and 0 another invalid one. What is the probability that your pointer is NULL, all values being equally likely? 1/3. Now, take the valid case out, so for every invalid case, you have a 50:50 ratio to catch all errors. Looks good right? Scale this for a 4-byte pointer. There are 2^32 or 4294967294 possible values. Of these, only ONE value is correct, one is NULL, and you are still left with 4294967292 other invalid cases. Recalculate: you have a test for 1 out of (4294967292+ 1) invalid cases. A probability of 2.xe-10 or 0 for most practical purposes. Such is the futility of the NULL check.
You know, a new driver (at least on Linux) that is capable of this probably wouldn't be that hard to write.
On the other hand, it would be folly to build your programs like this. Unless you have some really specific and single use for such a thing, I wouldn't recommend it. If you built a large application loaded with constant pointer validity checks it would likely be horrendously slow.
you should avoid these methods because they do not work. blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/09/27/773741.aspx – JaredPar Feb 15 '09 at 16:02
If they don't work - next windows update will fix it ?
If they don't work on concept level - function will be probably removed from windows api completely.
MSDN documentation claim that they are banned, and reason for this is probably flaw of further design of application (e.g. generally you should not eat invalid pointers silently - if you're in charge of design of whole application of course), and performance/time of pointer checking.
But you should not claim that they does not work because of some blog.
In my test application I've verified that they do work.
these links may be helpful
_CrtIsValidPointer
Verifies that a specified memory range is valid for reading and writing (debug version only).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0w1ekd5e.aspx
_CrtCheckMemory
Confirms the integrity of the memory blocks allocated in the debug heap (debug version only).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e73x0s4b.aspx
Is there any way to determine (programatically, of course) if a given pointer is "valid"? Checking for NULL is easy, but what about things like 0x00001234? When trying to dereference this kind of pointer an exception/crash occurs.
A cross-platform method is preferred, but platform-specific (for Windows and Linux) is also ok.
Update for clarification:
The problem is not with stale/freed/uninitialized pointers; instead, I'm implementing an API that takes pointers from the caller (like a pointer to a string, a file handle, etc.). The caller can send (in purpose or by mistake) an invalid value as the pointer. How do I prevent a crash?
Update for clarification: The problem is not with stale, freed or uninitialized pointers; instead, I'm implementing an API that takes pointers from the caller (like a pointer to a string, a file handle, etc.). The caller can send (in purpose or by mistake) an invalid value as the pointer. How do I prevent a crash?
You can't make that check. There is simply no way you can check whether a pointer is "valid". You have to trust that when people use a function that takes a pointer, those people know what they are doing. If they pass you 0x4211 as a pointer value, then you have to trust it points to address 0x4211. And if they "accidentally" hit an object, then even if you would use some scary operation system function (IsValidPtr or whatever), you would still slip into a bug and not fail fast.
Start using null pointers for signaling this kind of thing and tell the user of your library that they should not use pointers if they tend to accidentally pass invalid pointers, seriously :)
Here are three easy ways for a C program under Linux to get introspective about the status of the memory in which it is running, and why the question has appropriate sophisticated answers in some contexts.
After calling getpagesize() and rounding the pointer to a page
boundary, you can call mincore() to find out if a page is valid and
if it happens to be part of the process working set. Note that this requires
some kernel resources, so you should benchmark it and determine if
calling this function is really appropriate in your api. If your api
is going to be handling interrupts, or reading from serial ports
into memory, it is appropriate to call this to avoid unpredictable
behaviors.
After calling stat() to determine if there is a /proc/self directory available, you can fopen and read through /proc/self/maps
to find information about the region in which a pointer resides.
Study the man page for proc, the process information pseudo-file
system. Obviously this is relatively expensive, but you might be
able to get away with caching the result of the parse into an array
you can efficiently lookup using a binary search. Also consider the
/proc/self/smaps. If your api is for high-performance computing then
the program will want to know about the /proc/self/numa which is
documented under the man page for numa, the non-uniform memory
architecture.
The get_mempolicy(MPOL_F_ADDR) call is appropriate for high performance computing api work where there are multiple threads of
execution and you are managing your work to have affinity for non-uniform memory
as it relates to the cpu cores and socket resources. Such an api
will of course also tell you if a pointer is valid.
Under Microsoft Windows there is the function QueryWorkingSetEx that is documented under the Process Status API (also in the NUMA API).
As a corollary to sophisticated NUMA API programming this function will also let you do simple "testing pointers for validity (C/C++)" work, as such it is unlikely to be deprecated for at least 15 years.
Preventing a crash caused by the caller sending in an invalid pointer is a good way to make silent bugs that are hard to find.
Isn't it better for the programmer using your API to get a clear message that his code is bogus by crashing it rather than hiding it?
On Win32/64 there is a way to do this. Attempt to read the pointer and catch the resulting SEH exeception that will be thrown on failure. If it doesn't throw, then it's a valid pointer.
The problem with this method though is that it just returns whether or not you can read data from the pointer. It makes no guarantee about type safety or any number of other invariants. In general this method is good for little else other than to say "yes, I can read that particular place in memory at a time that has now passed".
In short, Don't do this ;)
Raymond Chen has a blog post on this subject: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/06/25/3507294.aspx
AFAIK there is no way. You should try to avoid this situation by always setting pointers to NULL after freeing memory.
On Unix you should be able to utilize a kernel syscall that does pointer checking and returns EFAULT, such as:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
bool isPointerBad( void * p )
{
int fh = open( p, 0, 0 );
int e = errno;
if ( -1 == fh && e == EFAULT )
{
printf( "bad pointer: %p\n", p );
return true;
}
else if ( fh != -1 )
{
close( fh );
}
printf( "good pointer: %p\n", p );
return false;
}
int main()
{
int good = 4;
isPointerBad( (void *)3 );
isPointerBad( &good );
isPointerBad( "/tmp/blah" );
return 0;
}
returning:
bad pointer: 0x3
good pointer: 0x7fff375fd49c
good pointer: 0x400793
There's probably a better syscall to use than open() [perhaps access], since there's a chance that this could lead to actual file creation codepath, and a subsequent close requirement.
Regarding the answer a bit up in this thread:
IsBadReadPtr(), IsBadWritePtr(), IsBadCodePtr(), IsBadStringPtr() for Windows.
My advice is to stay away from them, someone has already posted this one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/06/25/3507294.aspx
Another post on the same topic and by the same author (I think) is this one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/09/27/773741.aspx ("IsBadXxxPtr should really be called CrashProgramRandomly").
If the users of your API sends in bad data, let it crash. If the problem is that the data passed isn't used until later (and that makes it harder to find the cause), add a debug mode where the strings etc. are logged at entry. If they are bad it will be obvious (and probably crash). If it is happening way to often, it might be worth moving your API out of process and let them crash the API process instead of the main process.
Firstly, I don't see any point in trying to protect yourself from the caller deliberately trying to cause a crash. They could easily do this by trying to access through an invalid pointer themselves. There are many other ways - they could just overwrite your memory or the stack. If you need to protect against this sort of thing then you need to be running in a separate process using sockets or some other IPC for communication.
We write quite a lot of software that allows partners/customers/users to extend functionality. Inevitably any bug gets reported to us first so it is useful to be able to easily show that the problem is in the plug-in code. Additionally there are security concerns and some users are more trusted than others.
We use a number of different methods depending on performance/throughput requirements and trustworthyness. From most preferred:
separate processes using sockets (often passing data as text).
separate processes using shared memory (if large amounts of data to pass).
same process separate threads via message queue (if frequent short messages).
same process separate threads all passed data allocated from a memory pool.
same process via direct procedure call - all passed data allocated from a memory pool.
We try never to resort to what you are trying to do when dealing with third party software - especially when we are given the plug-ins/library as binary rather than source code.
Use of a memory pool is quite easy in most circumstances and needn't be inefficient. If YOU allocate the data in the first place then it is trivial to check the pointers against the values you allocated. You could also store the length allocated and add "magic" values before and after the data to check for valid data type and data overruns.
I've got a lot of sympathy with your question, as I'm in an almost identical position myself. I appreciate what a lot of the replies are saying, and they are correct - the routine supplying the pointer should be providing a valid pointer. In my case, it is almost inconceivable that they could have corrupted the pointer - but if they had managed, it would be MY software that crashes, and ME that would get the blame :-(
My requirement isn't that I continue after a segmentation fault - that would be dangerous - I just want to report what happened to the customer before terminating so that they can fix their code rather than blaming me!
This is how I've found to do it (on Windows): http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/csignal/signal/
To give a synopsis:
#include <signal.h>
using namespace std;
void terminate(int param)
/// Function executed if a segmentation fault is encountered during the cast to an instance.
{
cerr << "\nThe function received a corrupted reference - please check the user-supplied dll.\n";
cerr << "Terminating program...\n";
exit(1);
}
...
void MyFunction()
{
void (*previous_sigsegv_function)(int);
previous_sigsegv_function = signal(SIGSEGV, terminate);
<-- insert risky stuff here -->
signal(SIGSEGV, previous_sigsegv_function);
}
Now this appears to behave as I would hope (it prints the error message, then terminates the program) - but if someone can spot a flaw, please let me know!
There are no provisions in C++ to test for the validity of a pointer as a general case. One can obviously assume that NULL (0x00000000) is bad, and various compilers and libraries like to use "special values" here and there to make debugging easier (For example, if I ever see a pointer show up as 0xCECECECE in visual studio I know I did something wrong) but the truth is that since a pointer is just an index into memory it's near impossible to tell just by looking at the pointer if it's the "right" index.
There are various tricks that you can do with dynamic_cast and RTTI such to ensure that the object pointed to is of the type that you want, but they all require that you are pointing to something valid in the first place.
If you want to ensure that you program can detect "invalid" pointers then my advice is this: Set every pointer you declare either to NULL or a valid address immediately upon creation and set it to NULL immediately after freeing the memory that it points to. If you are diligent about this practice, then checking for NULL is all you ever need.
Setting the pointer to NULL before and after using is a good technique. This is easy to do in C++ if you manage pointers within a class for example (a string):
class SomeClass
{
public:
SomeClass();
~SomeClass();
void SetText( const char *text);
char *GetText() const { return MyText; }
void Clear();
private:
char * MyText;
};
SomeClass::SomeClass()
{
MyText = NULL;
}
SomeClass::~SomeClass()
{
Clear();
}
void SomeClass::Clear()
{
if (MyText)
free( MyText);
MyText = NULL;
}
void SomeClass::Settext( const char *text)
{
Clear();
MyText = malloc( strlen(text));
if (MyText)
strcpy( MyText, text);
}
Indeed, something could be done under specific occasion: for example if you want to check whether a string pointer string is valid, using write(fd, buf, szie) syscall can help you do the magic: let fd be a file descriptor of temporary file you create for test, and buf pointing to the string you are tesing, if the pointer is invalid write() would return -1 and errno set to EFAULT which indicating that buf is outside your accessible address space.
Peeter Joos answer is pretty good. Here is an "official" way to do it:
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <unistd.h>
bool is_pointer_valid(void *p) {
/* get the page size */
size_t page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
/* find the address of the page that contains p */
void *base = (void *)((((size_t)p) / page_size) * page_size);
/* call msync, if it returns non-zero, return false */
int ret = msync(base, page_size, MS_ASYNC) != -1;
return ret ? ret : errno != ENOMEM;
}
There isn't any portable way of doing this, and doing it for specific platforms can be anywhere between hard and impossible. In any case, you should never write code that depends on such a check - don't let the pointers take on invalid values in the first place.
As others have said, you can't reliably detect an invalid pointer. Consider some of the forms an invalid pointer might take:
You could have a null pointer. That's one you could easily check for and do something about.
You could have a pointer to somewhere outside of valid memory. What constitutes valid memory varies depending on how the run-time environment of your system sets up the address space. On Unix systems, it is usually a virtual address space starting at 0 and going to some large number of megabytes. On embedded systems, it could be quite small. It might not start at 0, in any case. If your app happens to be running in supervisor mode or the equivalent, then your pointer might reference a real address, which may or may not be backed up with real memory.
You could have a pointer to somewhere inside your valid memory, even inside your data segment, bss, stack or heap, but not pointing at a valid object. A variant of this is a pointer that used to point to a valid object, before something bad happened to the object. Bad things in this context include deallocation, memory corruption, or pointer corruption.
You could have a flat-out illegal pointer, such as a pointer with illegal alignment for the thing being referenced.
The problem gets even worse when you consider segment/offset based architectures and other odd pointer implementations. This sort of thing is normally hidden from the developer by good compilers and judicious use of types, but if you want to pierce the veil and try to outsmart the operating system and compiler developers, well, you can, but there is not one generic way to do it that will handle all of the issues you might run into.
The best thing you can do is allow the crash and put out some good diagnostic information.
In general, it's impossible to do. Here's one particularly nasty case:
struct Point2d {
int x;
int y;
};
struct Point3d {
int x;
int y;
int z;
};
void dump(Point3 *p)
{
printf("[%d %d %d]\n", p->x, p->y, p->z);
}
Point2d points[2] = { {0, 1}, {2, 3} };
Point3d *p3 = reinterpret_cast<Point3d *>(&points[0]);
dump(p3);
On many platforms, this will print out:
[0 1 2]
You're forcing the runtime system to incorrectly interpret bits of memory, but in this case it's not going to crash, because the bits all make sense. This is part of the design of the language (look at C-style polymorphism with struct inaddr, inaddr_in, inaddr_in6), so you can't reliably protect against it on any platform.
It's unbelievable how much misleading information you can read in articles above...
And even in microsoft msdn documentation IsBadPtr is claimed to be banned. Oh well - I prefer working application rather than crashing. Even if term working might be working incorrectly (as long as end-user can continue with application).
By googling I haven't found any useful example for windows - found a solution for 32-bit apps,
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Content/ViewAssociatedFile.aspx?rzp=%2FKB%2Fsystem%2Fdetect-driver%2F%2FDetectDriverSrc.zip&zep=DetectDriverSrc%2FDetectDriver%2Fsrc%2FdrvCppLib%2Frtti.cpp&obid=58895&obtid=2&ovid=2
but I need also to support 64-bit apps, so this solution did not work for me.
But I've harvested wine's source codes, and managed to cook similar kind of code which would work for 64-bit apps as well - attaching code here:
#include <typeinfo.h>
typedef void (*v_table_ptr)();
typedef struct _cpp_object
{
v_table_ptr* vtable;
} cpp_object;
#ifndef _WIN64
typedef struct _rtti_object_locator
{
unsigned int signature;
int base_class_offset;
unsigned int flags;
const type_info *type_descriptor;
//const rtti_object_hierarchy *type_hierarchy;
} rtti_object_locator;
#else
typedef struct
{
unsigned int signature;
int base_class_offset;
unsigned int flags;
unsigned int type_descriptor;
unsigned int type_hierarchy;
unsigned int object_locator;
} rtti_object_locator;
#endif
/* Get type info from an object (internal) */
static const rtti_object_locator* RTTI_GetObjectLocator(void* inptr)
{
cpp_object* cppobj = (cpp_object*) inptr;
const rtti_object_locator* obj_locator = 0;
if (!IsBadReadPtr(cppobj, sizeof(void*)) &&
!IsBadReadPtr(cppobj->vtable - 1, sizeof(void*)) &&
!IsBadReadPtr((void*)cppobj->vtable[-1], sizeof(rtti_object_locator)))
{
obj_locator = (rtti_object_locator*) cppobj->vtable[-1];
}
return obj_locator;
}
And following code can detect whether pointer is valid or not, you need probably to add some NULL checking:
CTest* t = new CTest();
//t = (CTest*) 0;
//t = (CTest*) 0x12345678;
const rtti_object_locator* ptr = RTTI_GetObjectLocator(t);
#ifdef _WIN64
char *base = ptr->signature == 0 ? (char*)RtlPcToFileHeader((void*)ptr, (void**)&base) : (char*)ptr - ptr->object_locator;
const type_info *td = (const type_info*)(base + ptr->type_descriptor);
#else
const type_info *td = ptr->type_descriptor;
#endif
const char* n =td->name();
This gets class name from pointer - I think it should be enough for your needs.
One thing which I'm still afraid is performance of pointer checking - in code snipet above there is already 3-4 API calls being made - might be overkill for time critical applications.
It would be good if someone could measure overhead of pointer checking compared for example to C#/managed c++ calls.
It is not a very good policy to accept arbitrary pointers as input parameters in a public API. It's better to have "plain data" types like an integer, a string or a struct (I mean a classical struct with plain data inside, of course; officially anything can be a struct).
Why? Well because as others say there is no standard way to know whether you've been given a valid pointer or one that points to junk.
But sometimes you don't have the choice - your API must accept a pointer.
In these cases, it is the duty of the caller to pass a good pointer. NULL may be accepted as a value, but not a pointer to junk.
Can you double-check in any way? Well, what I did in a case like that was to define an invariant for the type the pointer points to, and call it when you get it (in debug mode). At least if the invariant fails (or crashes) you know that you were passed a bad value.
// API that does not allow NULL
void PublicApiFunction1(Person* in_person)
{
assert(in_person != NULL);
assert(in_person->Invariant());
// Actual code...
}
// API that allows NULL
void PublicApiFunction2(Person* in_person)
{
assert(in_person == NULL || in_person->Invariant());
// Actual code (must keep in mind that in_person may be NULL)
}
Following does work in Windows (somebody suggested it before):
static void copy(void * target, const void* source, int size)
{
__try
{
CopyMemory(target, source, size);
}
__except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
doSomething(--whatever--);
}
}
The function has to be static, standalone or static method of some class.
To test on read-only, copy data in the local buffer.
To test on write without modifying contents, write them over.
You can test first/last addresses only.
If pointer is invalid, control will be passed to 'doSomething',
and then outside the brackets.
Just do not use anything requiring destructors, like CString.
On Windows I use this code:
void * G_pPointer = NULL;
const char * G_szPointerName = NULL;
void CheckPointerIternal()
{
char cTest = *((char *)G_pPointer);
}
bool CheckPointerIternalExt()
{
bool bRet = false;
__try
{
CheckPointerIternal();
bRet = true;
}
__except (EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
}
return bRet;
}
void CheckPointer(void * A_pPointer, const char * A_szPointerName)
{
G_pPointer = A_pPointer;
G_szPointerName = A_szPointerName;
if (!CheckPointerIternalExt())
throw std::runtime_error("Invalid pointer " + std::string(G_szPointerName) + "!");
}
Usage:
unsigned long * pTest = (unsigned long *) 0x12345;
CheckPointer(pTest, "pTest"); //throws exception
On macOS, you can do this with mach_vm_region, which as well as telling you if a pointer is valid, also lets you validate what access you have to the memory to which the pointer points (read/write/execute). I provided sample code to do this in my answer to another question:
#include <mach/mach.h>
#include <mach/mach_vm.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
bool ptr_is_valid(void *ptr, vm_prot_t needs_access) {
vm_map_t task = mach_task_self();
mach_vm_address_t address = (mach_vm_address_t)ptr;
mach_vm_size_t size = 0;
vm_region_basic_info_data_64_t info;
mach_msg_type_number_t count = VM_REGION_BASIC_INFO_COUNT_64;
mach_port_t object_name;
kern_return_t ret = mach_vm_region(task, &address, &size, VM_REGION_BASIC_INFO_64, (vm_region_info_t)&info, &count, &object_name);
if (ret != KERN_SUCCESS) return false;
return ((mach_vm_address_t)ptr) >= address && ((info.protection & needs_access) == needs_access);
}
#define TEST(ptr,acc) printf("ptr_is_valid(%p,access=%d)=%d\n", (void*)(ptr), (acc), ptr_is_valid((void*)(ptr),(acc)))
int main(int argc, char**argv) {
TEST(0,0);
TEST(0,VM_PROT_READ);
TEST(123456789,VM_PROT_READ);
TEST(main,0);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_READ);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_READ|VM_PROT_EXECUTE);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_EXECUTE);
TEST(main,VM_PROT_WRITE);
TEST((void*)(-1),0);
return 0;
}
The SEI CERT C Coding Standard recommendation MEM10-C. Define and use a pointer validation function says it is possible to do a check to some degree, especially under Linux OS.
The method described in the link is to keep track of the highest memory address returned by malloc and add a function that tests if someone tries to use a pointer greater than that value. It is probably of limited use.
IsBadReadPtr(), IsBadWritePtr(), IsBadCodePtr(), IsBadStringPtr() for Windows.
These take time proportional to the length of the block, so for sanity check I just check the starting address.
I have seen various libraries use some method to check for unreferenced memory and such. I believe they simply "override" the memory allocation and deallocation methods (malloc/free), which has some logic that keeps track of the pointers. I suppose this is overkill for your use case, but it would be one way to do it.
Technically you can override operator new (and delete) and collect information about all allocated memory, so you can have a method to check if heap memory is valid.
but:
you still need a way to check if pointer is allocated on stack ()
you will need to define what is 'valid' pointer:
a) memory on that address is
allocated
b) memory at that address
is start address of object (e.g.
address not in the middle of huge
array)
c) memory at that address
is start address of object of expected type
Bottom line: approach in question is not C++ way, you need to define some rules which ensure that function receives valid pointers.
There is no way to make that check in C++. What should you do if other code passes you an invalid pointer? You should crash. Why? Check out this link: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/09/27/773741.aspx
Addendum to the accpeted answer(s):
Assume that your pointer could hold only three values -- 0, 1 and -1 where 1 signifies a valid pointer, -1 an invalid one and 0 another invalid one. What is the probability that your pointer is NULL, all values being equally likely? 1/3. Now, take the valid case out, so for every invalid case, you have a 50:50 ratio to catch all errors. Looks good right? Scale this for a 4-byte pointer. There are 2^32 or 4294967294 possible values. Of these, only ONE value is correct, one is NULL, and you are still left with 4294967292 other invalid cases. Recalculate: you have a test for 1 out of (4294967292+ 1) invalid cases. A probability of 2.xe-10 or 0 for most practical purposes. Such is the futility of the NULL check.
You know, a new driver (at least on Linux) that is capable of this probably wouldn't be that hard to write.
On the other hand, it would be folly to build your programs like this. Unless you have some really specific and single use for such a thing, I wouldn't recommend it. If you built a large application loaded with constant pointer validity checks it would likely be horrendously slow.
you should avoid these methods because they do not work. blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/09/27/773741.aspx – JaredPar Feb 15 '09 at 16:02
If they don't work - next windows update will fix it ?
If they don't work on concept level - function will be probably removed from windows api completely.
MSDN documentation claim that they are banned, and reason for this is probably flaw of further design of application (e.g. generally you should not eat invalid pointers silently - if you're in charge of design of whole application of course), and performance/time of pointer checking.
But you should not claim that they does not work because of some blog.
In my test application I've verified that they do work.
these links may be helpful
_CrtIsValidPointer
Verifies that a specified memory range is valid for reading and writing (debug version only).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0w1ekd5e.aspx
_CrtCheckMemory
Confirms the integrity of the memory blocks allocated in the debug heap (debug version only).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e73x0s4b.aspx
I want to declare an instance of a structure which will be accessible in all source files. To be more precise, I have a structure which represents a ring buffer. Two parts of my program can write to the buffer, so I need somehow to share the same instance of the buffer between my source files. This was my idea but it is not working:
To declare instance of buffer as extern in buf.h file and to make function ringBuf_get() which would return pointer to instance of my buffer.
extern ringBuf buf_frames;
ringBuf *ringBuf_get(void);
So I would implement ringBuf_get() like this in buf.c:
ringBuf *ringBuf_get(void)
{
return &buf_frames;
}
Then whenever I want to make some operation on buffer, I would first call ringBuf_get to get instance of buffer and then I would make operation. But it seems that I am doing something wrong. Feel free to comment.
bool ringBuf_write(ringBuf *_this, uint8_t *mac_protocol_data_unit, uint8_t length)
{
if(_this->write->alloc == false)
{
_this->write->alloc = true;
_this->write->len = length;
memcpy(_this->write->data, mac_protocol_data_unit, length);
if(_this->write == &_this->buf_pool[MAX_BUF_POOL_SIZE])
_this->write = &_this->buf_pool[0];
else
_this->write++;
xil_printf("\n\n Write Suceeded! \n\n");
return true;
}
else
{
if (ringBuf_full(_this))
{
xil_printf("\n\n BUFFER IS FULL! \n\n");
}
return false;
}
}
There is no need for the header to declare
extern ringBuf buf_frames;
The function is sufficient — and it is better to expose just the function and not the global variable. Indeed, the variable should be made static in the file that defines it (and there must be such a file; presumably it would be buf.c). Making the variable static means other files cannot access it by name, but they can call the function to get a pointer to the variable and then access it.
Auxilliary Q&A
It seems that every time I write:
ringBuf_write(ringBuf_get(), packet1, 127);
ringBuf_write(ringBuf_get(), packet2, 64);
ringBuf_write(ringBuf_get(), packet1, 127);
I get a new instance by calling ringBuf_get(). So instead of movingthe pointer and writing to another frame in the buffer, I write to the same frame. Also the buffer does not remember that I have already allocated, for example, frame 0.
Then you need to review your question and explain what is going wrong, preferably with an MCVE (How to create a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable Example?) or SSCCE (Short, Self-Contained, Correct Example) — two names and links for the same basic idea.
You wrote the ringBuf_get() function to return a pointer to the same data structure each time. That's probably correct, but it is not then clear what you mean by 'I get new instance by calling ringBuf_get()'. You get the same instance each time. If you've not updated that instance correctly, or you need to point to a different instance each time, you need to fix the code.
It is not clear where you check that the memory to copied to _this->write->data is small enough to fit.
Also, it is not clear how big the _this->buf_pool array is. If it is not of size MAX_BUF_POOL_SIZE+1, you have a problem writing out of bounds in the code:
if(_this->write == &_this->buf_pool[MAX_BUF_POOL_SIZE])
_this->write = &_this->buf_pool[0];
else
_this->write++;
Arguably the damage is done by the memcpy() before that. The code that sets _this->alloc = true; without allocating memory is worrying, too. I can't say whether it is wrong or not; you've not shown enough of your code or the detailed definition of the structure.
How have you unit tested the ring-buffer code? Where are all the diagnostic print statements that tell you that the buffers are being handled correctly? Have you run the function in a debugger if you can't or refuse to add printing code? What is the design of the ring buffers really?
You haven't shown us much of the code, but does this statement (or others!) break an array?
if(_this->write == &_this->buf_pool[MAX_BUF_POOL_SIZE])
Typically, when you define the SIZE of an array, it can then be indexed in the range 0..(SIZE-1). I propose this since one of your problems is being able to write a 5th buffer when there are only 4.
#define HUGE_NUMBER ???
char string[HUGE_NUMBER];
do_something_with_the_string(string);
I was wondering what would be the maximum number that I could add to a char array without risking any potential memory problems, buffer overflows or the like. I wanted to get user input into it, and possibly the maximum possible.
See this response by Jack Klein (see original post):
The original C standard (ANSI 1989/ISO
1990) required that a compiler
successfully translate at least one
program containing at least one
example of a set of environmental
limits. One of those limits was being
able to create an object of at least
32,767 bytes.
This minimum limit was raised in the
1999 update to the C standard to be at
least 65,535 bytes.
No C implementation is required to
provide for objects greater than that
size, which means that they don't need
to allow for an array of ints greater
than (int)(65535 / sizeof(int)).
In very practical terms, on modern
computers, it is not possible to say
in advance how large an array can be
created. It can depend on things like
the amount of physical memory
installed in the computer, the amount
of virtual memory provided by the OS,
the number of other tasks, drivers,
and programs already running and how
much memory that are using. So your
program may be able to use more or
less memory running today than it
could use yesterday or it will be able
to use tomorrow.
Many platforms place their strictest
limits on automatic objects, that is
those defined inside of a function
without the use of the 'static'
keyword. On some platforms you can
create larger arrays if they are
static or by dynamic allocation.
Now, to provide a slightly more tailored answer, DO NOT DECLARE HUGE ARRAYS TO AVOID BUFFER OVERFLOWS. That's close to the worst practice one can think of in C. Rather, spend some time writing good code, and carefully make sure that no buffer overflow will occur. Also, if you do not know the size of your array in advance, look at malloc, it might come in handy :P
It depends on where char string[HUGE_NUMBER]; is placed.
Is it inside a function? Then the array will be on the stack, and if and how fast your OS can grow stacks depends on the OS. So here is the general rule: dont place huge arrays on the stack.
Is it ouside a function then it is global (process-memory), if the OS cannot allocate that much memory when it tries to load your program, your program will crash and your program will have no chance to notice that (so the following is better:)
Large arrays should be malloc'ed. With malloc, the OS will return a null-pointer if the malloc failed, depending on the OS and its paging-scheme and memory-mapping-scheme this will either fail when 1) there is no continuous region of free memory large enough for the array or 2) the OS cannot map enough regions of free physical memory to memory that appears to your process as continous memory.
So, with large arrays do this:
char* largeArray = malloc(HUGE_NUMBER);
if(!largeArray) { do error recovery and display msg to user }
Declaring arbitrarily huge arrays to avoid buffer overflows is bad practice. If you really don't know in advance how large a buffer needs to be, use malloc or realloc to dynamically allocate and extend the buffer as necessary, possibly using a smaller, fixed-sized buffer as an intermediary.
Example:
#define PAGE_SIZE 1024 // 1K buffer; you can make this larger or smaller
/**
* Read up to the next newline character from the specified stream.
* Dynamically allocate and extend a buffer as necessary to hold
* the line contents.
*
* The final size of the generated buffer is written to bufferSize.
*
* Returns NULL if the buffer cannot be allocated or if extending it
* fails.
*/
char *getNextLine(FILE *stream, size_t *bufferSize)
{
char input[PAGE_SIZE]; // allocate
int done = 0;
char *targetBuffer = NULL;
*bufferSize = 0;
while (!done)
{
if(fgets(input, sizeof input, stream) != NULL)
{
char *tmp;
char *newline = strchr(input, '\n');
if (newline != NULL)
{
done = 1;
*newline = 0;
}
tmp = realloc(targetBuffer, sizeof *tmp * (*bufferSize + strlen(input)));
if (tmp)
{
targetBuffer = tmp;
*bufferSize += strlen(input);
strcat(targetBuffer, input);
}
else
{
free(targetBuffer);
targetBuffer = NULL;
*bufferSize = 0;
fprintf(stderr, "Unable to allocate or extend input buffer\n");
}
}
}
If the array is going to be allocated on the stack, then you are limited by the stack size (typically 1MB on Windows, some of it will be used so you have even less). Otherwise I imagine the limit would be quite large.
However, making the array really big is not a solution to buffer overflow issues. Don't do it. Use functions that have a mechanism for limiting the amount of buffer they use to make sure you don't overstep your buffer, and make the size something more reasonable (1K for example).
You can use malloc() to get larger portions of memory than normally an array could handle.
Well, a buffer overflow wouldn't be caused by too large a value for HUGE_NUMBER so much as too small compared to what was written to it (write to index HUGE_NUMBER or higher, and you've overflown the buffer).
Aside from that it will depend upon the machine. There are certainly systems that could handle several millions in the heap, and a million or so on the stack (depending on other pressures), but there are also certainly some that couldn't handle more than a few hundred (small embedded devices would be an obvious example). While 65,535 is a standard-specified minimum, a really small device could specify that the standard was deliberately departed from for this reason.
In real terms, on a large machine, long before you actually run out of memory, you are needlessly putting pressure on the memory in a way that would affect performance. You would be better off dynamically sizing an array to an appropriate size.