Proper methods to Copy files/folders programmatically in C using POSIX functions - c

These terms may not be 100% accurate, but I'm using the GCC compiler and POSIX library. I have C code compiled with the SQLite amalgamation file to a single executable.
In the user interface that exchanges JSON messages with the C program, I'd like to make it possible for users to copy the SQLite database files they create through the C program, and copy a full directory/folder.
Thus far, I've been able to rename and move files and folders programmatically.
I've read many questions and answers here, at Microsoft's C runtime library, and other places but I must be missing the fundamental points. I'm using regular old C, not C++ or C#.
My question is are there POSIX functions similar to rename(), _mkdir(), rmdir(), remove(), _stat(), that allow for programmatic copying of files and folders in Windows and Linux?
If not, can one just make a new folder and/or file and fread/fwrite the bytes from the original file to the new file?
I am primarily concerned with copying SQLite database files, although I wouldn't mind knowing the answer in general also.
Is this answer an adequate method?
Is the system() function a poor method? It seems to work quite well. However, it took awhile to figure out how to stop the messages, such as "copied 2 files" from being sent to stdout and shutting down the requesting application since it's not well-formed JSON. This answer explains how and has a link to Microsoft "Using command redirection operators". A /q in xcopy may or may not be necessary also, but certainly didn't do the job alone.
Thank you very much for any direction you may be able to provide.
The question that someone suggested as an answer and placed the little submission box on this question is one that I had already linked to in my question. I don't mean to be rude but, if it had answered my question, I would not have written this one. Thank you whoever you are for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it.
I don't see how that would be a better option than using system() because with the right parameters all the sub-directories and files of a single parent folder can be copied in one statement without having to iterate through all of them manually. Is there any reason why it would not be better to use system() apart from the fact that code will need to be different for each OS?
Handling errors are a bit different because system() doesn't return an errno but an exit code; however, the errors can be redirected from stderr to a file and pulled from there, when necessary

rename(): posix
_mkdir(): not posix. You want mkdir which is. mkdir takes two arguments, the second of which should usually be 077.
rmdir(): posix
remove(): posix
_stat(): not posix, you want stat() which is.
_stat and _mkdir are called as such on the Windows C library because they're not quite compatible with the modern Unix calls. _mkdir is missing an argument, and _stat looks like a very old version of the Unix call. You'll have trouble on Windows with files larger than 2GB.
You could do:
#ifdef _WIN32
int mkdir(const char *path, int mode) { return _mkdir(path); } /* In the original C we could have #defined this but that doesn't work anymore */
#define stat _stat64
#endif
but if you do so, test it like crazy.
In the end, you're going to be copying stuff with stdio; this loop works. (beware the linked answer; it has bugs that'll bite ya.)
int copyfile(const char *src, const char *dst)
{
const int bufsz = 65536;
char *buf = malloc(bufsz);
if (!buf) return -1; /* like mkdir, rmdir, return 0 for success, -1 for failure */
FILE *hin = fopen(src, "rb");
if (!hin) { free(buf); return -1; }
FILE *hout = fopen(dst, "wb");
if (!hout) { free(buf); fclose(hin); return -1; }
size_t buflen;
while ((buflen = fread(buf, 1, bufsz)) > 0) {
if (buflen != fwrite(buf, 1, buflen)) {
fclose(hout);
fclose(hin);
free(buf);
return -1; /* IO error writing data */
}
}
free(buf);
int r = ferror(hin) ? -1 : 0; /* check if fread had indicated IO error on input */
fclose(hin);
return r | (fclose(hout) ? -1 : 0); /* final case: check if IO error flushing buffer -- don't omit this it really can happen; calling `fflush()` won't help. */
}

Related

How to replace the use of tmpnam() in the following code snippet

I fully understand that tmpnam has been deprecated and would like to remove it from a function in an existing file that prevents me from building the project. However, since I am not familiar with it and am unable to experiment with it, I am not sure how best to replicate this functionality.
if ((myfileName = tmpnam(NULL)) == NULL) { return APP_ERROR }
I read the information on tmpnam here but the best I can come up with is to use something like:
if (tmpnam_r == NULL) { return APP_ERROR }
However, since I cannot compile with tmpnam and am unfamiliar with the code in question, I am not confident in properly capturing the original intent.
As best as I can tell, this appears to be testing if the file exists, and if not, simply returns an error, as the next step consists of copying content into myfileName, which should presumably exist following the above check.
The problem with tmpnam() is that it generates a name that is unique and does not exist when it returns, but that name is not guaranteed to be unique by the time you use it in a call to fopen() (or open()).
The key feature of the mkstemp() function is that it creates and opens a file with the new name, so that there isn't a TOCTOU (time of check, time of use) vulnerability. This cuts down the avenues for security risks.
Code designed to use tmpnam() usually needs a file name, so using tmpfile() is usually not an option; it doesn't provide a way to find the file name. If you don't need the file name then using tmpfile() works well and is Standard C, so it is widely available.
The specific case of tmpnam() and tmpnam_s() is interesting. Although tmpnam_s() avoids some string-related problems, it does not change the behaviour of tmpnam() in the way that causes the security problems addressed by mkstemp(). So, independent of the portability issues that arise from attempting to use tmpnam_s() (or any of the other *_s() functions from Annex K of the C11 or C18 standards), it doesn't fix the problem that causes tmpnam() to be deprecated.
You can arrange to use mkstemp() instead of tmpnam() and close the file descriptor before continuing with the other code:
tmpnam(name); // Replace this
int fd = mkstemp(name); // With this…
if (fd >= 0)
close(fd);
It's not great, but it does ensure the file is created, which reduces the security vulnerabilities a bit, but not as much as using the file descriptor directly. You could (should) wrap that into a function.
Note that the mkstemp() returns a file descriptor; if you want a file stream, you can use fdopen() to create a file stream from the file descriptor. And if that fails, you probably want to remove the file (with remove() or unlink()).
So, that gives you a need for fmkstemp():
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* mkstemp() */
#include <unistd.h> /* close() */
extern FILE *fmkstemp(char *name); /* Add to a convenient header file */
FILE *fmkstemp(char *name)
{
int fd = mkstemp(name);
FILE *fp = 0;
if (fd >= 0)
{
fp = fdopen(fd, "w+");
if (fp == 0)
{
close(fd);
unlink(name);
}
}
return(fp);
}
Note that after you've used fmkstemp(), you use fclose() to close the file stream (and, behind the scenes, that closes the file descriptor).
Don't forget to remove the temporary file before exit. That's where a function registered with atexit() or one of its variants can be useful.

How to compare two (absolute) paths (given as char* ) in C and check if they are the same?

Given two paths as char*, I can't determine if the two paths are pointing to the same file.
How to implement in C a platform-independent utility to check if paths are pointing to the same file or not.
Using strcmp will not work because on windows paths can contain \ or /
Using ist_ino will not help because it does not work on windows
char *fileName = du->getFileName();
char *oldFileName = m_duPtr->getFileName();
bool isSameFile = pathCompare(fileName, oldFileName) == 0;//(strcmp(fileName, oldFileName) == 0);
if (isSameFile){
stat(fileName, &pBuf);
stat(oldFileName, &pBuf2);
if (pBuf.st_ino == pBuf2.st_ino){
bRet = true;
}
}
You can't. Hard links also exist on Windows and the C standard library has no methods for operating on them.
Plausible solutions to the larger problem: link against cygwin1.dll and use the st_ino method. You omitted st_dev from your sample code and need to put it back.
While there is an actual way to accomplish this on Windows, it involves ntdll methods and I had to read Cygwin's code to find out how to do it.
The methods are NtGetFileInformationByHandle and NtFsGetVolumeInformationNyHandle. There are documented kernel32 calls that claim to do the same thing. See the cygwin source code for why they don't work right (buggy fs drivers).

fprintf() is not working in ubuntu

I'm trying to learn File I/O concepts in C programming language. I'm using GNU / Linux ( Ubuntu 16.04 LTS ) and my IDE is eclipse 3.8. when I try to write in a file through fprintf() method, it doesn't create any files or if the file is even created, it doesn't write in it. I tried to fix the problem by using fflush() or setbuf(file_pointer, NULL) methods as is suggested here but still no change. I guess I'm writing the address of the file in a wrong way.
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void){
FILE *file_pointer;
file_pointer=fopen("~/.textsfiless/test.txt","w+");
setbuf(file_pointer,NULL);
fprintf(file_pointer,"Testing...\n");
fclose(file_pointer);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Can someone explain what's wrong here?
On Linux, the ~ in ~/.textsfiless/test.txt is not expanded by the C library fopen... When you use ~ on the command line, it is expanded by your shell (but not by the program using it, started by the shell doing some execve(2)...) into your home directory; the expansion is called globbing. Read glob(7). You are very unlikely to have a directory named ~.
You should read Advanced Linux Programming
So you should check if fopen failed (it is very likely that it did fail). If you want to get a file in the home directory, you'll better use getenv(3) with "HOME" (or perhaps getpwuid(3) & getuid(2)...). See environ(7)
Perhaps a better code might be:
char*homedir = getenv("HOME");
if (!homedir) { perror("getenv HOME"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
char pathbuf[512]; /// or perhaps PATH_MAX instead of 512
snprintf(pathbuf, sizeof(pathbuf),
"%s/.textsfiless/test.txt", homedir);
FILE *file_pointer = fopen(pathbuf, "r");
if (!file_pointer) { perror(pathbuf); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
and so on.
Notice that you should check against failures most C standard library (& POSIX) functions. The perror(3) function is useful to report errors to the user on stderr.
(pedantically, we should even test that snprintf(3) returns a length below sizeof(pathbuf) or use and test against failure asprintf(3) instead; I leave that test as an exercise to the reader)
More generally, read the documentation of every external function that you are using.
Beware of undefined behavior (your code is probably having some, e.g. fprintf to a NULL stream). Compile your code with all warnings & debug info (so gcc -Wall -g) and use the gdb debugger. Read What every C programmer should know about undefined behavior.
BTW, look into strace(1) and try it on your original (faulty) program. You'll learn a lot about the system calls used in it.
Most likely your call to fopen() fails. You don't have any checking in your program to ensure fopen even worked. It may not have, and this could be due to a variety of things, like you spelling the path wrong, wrong file or process permissions, etc.
To see what really happened, you should check fopen's return value:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void){
FILE *file_pointer;
file_pointer=fopen("~/.textsfiless/test.txt","w+");
if (file_pointer == NULL) {
printf("Opening the file failed.");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
setbuf(file_pointer,NULL);
fprintf(file_pointer,"Testing...\n");
fclose(file_pointer);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Edit: Since your comment, you getting the path wrong is most certainly what happened. If you're executing your program from the current directory, and your file is in a folder called "textfiless" in your current directory and your file is called "test.txt", then you'd call fopen like this:
file_pointer=fopen("/textsfiless/test.txt","w+");

Opening a file in Mac OS X

I am trying to open a text file with C++ in Mac OS X but I always get a Bus error.
I do not care where to put the file. I just need to read it. Am I writing its address wrong? or that Bus Error has another reason?
FILE *dic;
dic = fopen("DICT","rb");
dic = fopen("./DICT","rb");
dic = fopen("~/DICT","rb");
dic = fopen("~//DICT","rb");
With a little bit of clarification I see the problem in your C code (not C++!) is that fopen() returns NULL. You can check what the problem really is by reporting the detailed error:
if( (dic = fopen("DICT", "rb") == NULL ) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", perror("ERROR:"));
exit(1);
}
If fopen() fails to find the file on the user's desktop and you wish your code to work on multiple platforms then you might define a function to get the user's desktop directory for using with fopen(). Something like
char* user_desktop(char* buf, size_t len)
{
const char* const DESKTOP_DIR =
#ifdef PC
"C:\\Documents and Settings\\Pooya\\Desktop\\"
#elif defined(OSX)
"/Users/Pooya/Desktop/"
#elif defined(LINUX)
"/home/users/pooya/Desktop/"
// fail to compile if no OS specified ...
#endif
return strncpy(buf, DESKTOP_DIR, len);
}
You probably want to look into a more robust way of getting the path of the desktop for each operating system. Most operating systems have an API for this, so do your research. There are also more robust ways of splitting behaviour for various platforms, you can look into that or open a different question about that. I just wanted to express my idea, of having a function which will return you the appropriate desktop path no matter on which platform you compile your code.
This code is correct! Pay attention to the directory where the executable is located. For sure the directory of the execution is not the same as you are expecting (I suppose, the directory of the .c files, right?).
I believe you are executing the app from the IDE. This is commom in Xcode, it mounts the exec`s in another location than that where the project files are located, and this such location that is considered when you execute the program, whether you execute it from the IDE or not!
Simply move the file you want to read to the location of the application and it will work properly.

Duplicate file descriptor with its own file offset

How can one create a new file descriptor from an existing file descriptor such that the new descriptor does not share the same internal file structure/entry in the file table? Specifically attributes such as file offset (and preferably permissions, sharing and modes) should not be shared between the new and old file descriptors.
Under both Windows and Linux, dup() will duplicate the file descriptor, but both descriptors still point to the same file structure in the process' file table. Any seeking on either descriptor will adjust the position for the other descriptors as well.
Note
I've since received answers for both Windows and Linux and adjusted the question a little too often, which has made it difficult for people to answer. I'll adjust my votes and accept the cleanest answer which covers both Windows and Linux. Apologies to all, I'm still new to the SO paradigm. Thanks for the great answers!
So basically, what you really want is to be given a file descriptor, and basically open the same file over again, to get a separate position, sharing, mode, etc. And you want to do this on Windows (where the "file descriptor" is basically a foreign object, not something used directly by the OS or the run-time library at all.
Amazingly enough, there is a way to do that, at least with MS VC++. All but two steps of it use only the Win32 API so porting to other compilers/libraries should be fairly reasonable (I think most supply versions of those two functions). Those are for converting a Unix-style file descriptor to a native Win32 file handle, and converting a native Win32 file handle back to a Unix-style file descriptor.
Convert file-descriptor to native file handle with _get_osfhandle()
Get a name for the file with GetFileInformationByHandleEx(FILE_NAME_INFO)1
Use CreateFile to open a new handle to that file
Create a file descriptor for that handle with _open_osfhandle()
Et voilĂ , we have a new file descriptor referring to the same file, but with its own permissions, position, etc.
Toward the end of your question, you make it sound like you also want the "permissions", but that doesn't seem to make any real sense -- the permissions attach to the file itself, not to how the file is opened, so opening or reopening the file has no effect on the file's permissions. If you really want to know the, you can get it with GetFileInformationByHandle, but be aware that file permissions in Windows are quite a bit different from the (traditional) file permissions in Unix. Unix has owner/group/world permissions on all files, and most systems also have ACLs (though there's more variation in how they work). Windows either has no permissions at all (e.g., files on FAT or FAT32) or else uses ACLs (e.g., files on NTFS), but nothing that's really equivalent to the traditional owner/group/world permissions most people are accustomed to on Unix.
Perhaps you're using "permissions" to refer to whether the file was open for reading, writing, or both. Getting that is considerably uglier than any of the preceding. The problem is that most of it is in the library, not Win32, so there's probably no way to do it that will be even close to portable between compilers. With MS VC++ 9.0 SP1 (not guaranteed for any other compiler) you can do this:
#include <stdio.h>
int get_perms(int fd) {
int i;
FILE * base = __iob_func();
for (i=0; i<_IOB_ENTRIES; i++)
if (base[i]._file == fd)
return base[i]._flag; // we've found our file
return 0; // file wasn't found.
}
Since this involved some spelunking, I wrote a quick test to verify that it might actually work:
#ifdef TEST
#include <io.h>
void show_perms(int perms, char const *caption) {
printf("File opened for %s\n", caption);
printf("Read permission = %d\n", (perms & _IOREAD)!=0);
printf("Write permission = %d\n", (perms & _IOWRT)!=0);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
FILE *file1, *file2;
int perms1, perms2;
file1=fopen(argv[1], "w");
perms1 = get_perms(_fileno(file1));
fclose(file1);
file2=fopen(argv[1], "r");
perms2 = get_perms(_fileno(file2));
fclose(file2);
show_perms(perms1, "writing");
show_perms(perms2, "reading");
return 0;
}
#endif
And the results seem to indicate success:
File opened for writing
Read permission = 0
Write permission = 1
File opened for reading
Read permission = 1
Write permission = 0
You can then test that returned flag against _IOREAD, _IOWRT, and _IORW, which are defined in stdio.h. Despite my previous warnings, I should probably point out that I suspect (though I certainly can't guarantee) that this part of the library is fairly stable, so the real chances of major changes are probably fairly minimal.
In the other direction, however, there's basically no chance at all that it'll work with any other library. It could (but certainly isn't guaranteed to) work with the other compilers that use the MS library, such as Intel, MinGW or Comeau using MS VC++ as its back-end. Of those, I'd say the most likely to work would be Comeau, and the least likely MinGW (but that's only a guess; there's a good chance it won't work with any of them).
Requires the redistributable Win32 FileID API Library
So, I recommend reading up on this a little more. The dup() and related functions serve to create a duplicate value in the file descriptor table pointing to the same entry in the open file table. This is intended to have the same offset. If you call open(), you will create a new entry the open file table.
It doesn't make any sense to create a duplicate of a file descriptor and that new file descriptor have a different offset in the open file table (this seems to contradict what the word "duplicate" means).
I'm not sure what your question is actually. I mean, it isn't the same thing as a duplicate. You could read:
/proc/self/fd/[descriptor]
and get the string that was used to open that file descriptor; bear in mind this may provide some pitfalls, some of which you actually noted in your observation of calling open() again.
Maybe you can explain a little more and I can try to update to help.
Why don't you just open the file a second time with open() or CreateFile() on windows? This gives you all freedom of different access rights and separate offset.
This of course has the drawback that you you can not open the file exclusively, but it solves your problem very simply.

Resources