I parsed through a bunch of INI files using PHP. Upon doing so, I came across a few errors in the script. I located the problem lines in the files afterwards.
In short, are either of these lines actually valid?
{section} (rather than [section]; happened in one set, but none of the other sets in the same location)
[section]=foo
I'm mostly curious because I don't know whether they've actually caused any errors, or if they're working as the maintainers expected (without knowing that it's a possible typo).
Related
I'm writing the front-end part of an interpreter and I initially disliked the idea of just dumping all the source files into memory and then referencing that text directly. So the tokenizer reads from a char buffers and builds the token stream.
However, I have reached the parsing side of things and it hit me that because I would want to output nice errors and warnings that show the malformed line of source code. I guess I could put column numbers in the tokens, but then by error messages would be like getting directions by telephone: "It's in file X, on line Y, column Z, right next to the curly brace, you know the one. If you hit the semicolon, you've gone to far."
I seem to have put myself into a situation where I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want nice messages, but I don't want to hog memory.
It there something I'm missing? Or is loading the source in memory the way to go?
When there's an error to report to the user, it hardly matters how long in milliseconds it takes to report it.
I'd keep your tokenized stream in memory to keep your interpreter fast. (Actually, you should switch to a threaded interpreter or even a bad one pass compiler to enhance the execution rate).
When you encounter an error, go to the disk, fetch the line(s) of interest, and show them to the user. If he doesn't make any errors, this costs you zero. If he makes a small number of errors, that may be tiny bit inefficient but the user won't know. If he makes large number of errors, the file content of the files containing errors are going to read by the OS into its local cache, which is likely bigger than your programs anyway, and so access will be more efficient than if you kept the source entirely on the disk.
Better idea: mmap your sources in the first place, if you can. Fall back to slurping the whole file if you're reading from a pipe or something.
After parsing, you may want to call madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) (but only if it was originally mmaped) to advise the kernel to drop it from the cache (but still keep it available for errors) ... but this is probably not necessary, and may even not be a good idea, depending on your compiler design (e.g. are identifiers still pointing, or are they interned to a single, separate, allocation).
There are several questions dealing with some aspects of this problem, but neither seems to answer it wholly. The whole problem can be summarized as follows:
You have an already compiled executable (obviously expecting the use of this technique).
You want to add an arbitrarily sized binary data to it (not necessarily by itself which would be another nasty problem to deal with).
You want the already compiled executable to be able to access this added binary data.
My particular use-case would be an interpreter, where I would like to make the user able to produce a single file executable out of an interpreter binary and the code he supplies (the interpreter binary being the executable which would have to be patched with the user supplied code as binary data).
A similar case are self-extracting archives, where a program (the archiving utility, such as zip) is capable to construct such an executable which contains a pre-built decompressor (the already compiled executable), and user-supplied data (the contents of the archive). Obviously no compiler or linker is involved in this process (Thanks, Mathias for the note and pointing out 7-zip).
Using existing questions a particular path of solution shows along the following examples:
appending data to an exe - This deals with the aspect of adding arbitrary data to arbitrary exes, without covering how to actually access it (basically simple append usually works, also true with Unix's ELF format).
Finding current executable's path without /proc/self/exe - In companion with the above, this would allow getting a file name to use for opening the exe, to access the added data. There are many more of these kind of questions, however neither focuses especially on the problem of getting a path suitable for the purpose of actually getting the binary opened as a file (which goal alone might (?) be easier to accomplish - truly you don't even need the path, just the binary opened for reading).
There also may be other, probably more elegant ways around this problem than padding the binary and opening the file for reading it in. For example could the executable be made so that it becomes rather trivial to patch it later with the arbitrarily sized data so it appears "within" it being in some proper data segment? (I couldn't really find anything on this, for fixed size data it should be trivial though unless the executable has some hash)
Can this be done reasonably well with as little deviation from standard C as possible? Even more or less cross-platform? (At least from maintenance standpoint) Note that it would be preferred if the program performing the adding of the binary data didn't rely on compiler tools to do it (which the user might not have), but solutions necessiting those might also be useful.
Note the already compiled executable criteria (the first point in the above list), which requires a completely different approach than solutions described in questions like C/C++ with GCC: Statically add resource files to executable/library or SDL embed image inside program executable , which ask for embedding data compile-time.
Additional notes:
The problems with the obvious approach outlined above and suggested in some comments, that to just append to the binary and use that, are as follows:
Opening the currently running program's binary doesn't seem something trivial (opening the executable for reading is, but not finding the path to supply to the file open call, at least not in a reasonably cross-platform manner).
The method of acquiring the path may provide an attack surface which probably wouldn't exist otherwise. This means that a potential attacker could trick the program to see different binary data (provided by him) like which the executable actually has, exposing any vulnerability which might reside in the parser of the data.
It depends on how you want other systems to see your binary.
Digital signed in Windows
The exe format allows for verifying the file has not been modified since publishing. This would allow you to :-
Compile your file
Add your data packet
Sign your file and publish it.
The advantage of following this system, is that "everybody" agrees your file has not been modified since signing.
The easiest way to achieve this scheme, is to use a resource. Windows resources can be added post- linking. They are protected by the authenticode digital signature, and your program can extract the resource data from itself.
It used to be possible to increase the signature to include binary data. Unfortunately this has been banned. There were binaries which used data in the signature section. Unfortunately this was used maliciously. Some details here msdn blog
Breaking the signature
If re-signing is not an option, then the result would be treated as insecure. It is worth noting here, that appended data is insecure, and can be modified without people being able to tell, but so is the code in your binary.
Appending data to a binary does break the digital signature, and also means the end-user can't tell if the code has been modified.
This means that any self-protection you add to your code to ensure the data blob is still secure, would not prevent your code from being modified to remove the check.
Running module
Windows GetModuleFileName allows the running path to be found.
Linux offers /proc/self or /proc/pid.
Unix does not seem to have a method which is reliable.
Data reading
The approach of the zip format, is to have a directory written to the end of the file. This means the data can be found at the end of the location, and then looked backwards for the start of the data. The advantage here, is the data blob is signposted from the end of the data, rather than the natural start.
I´m searching information about how to compare two codes and decide if the code submitted by someone is correct or not (based on a solution code defined before).
I could compare the output but many codes may have the same output. Then I think I must compare someway the codes and give a percentage of similitude.
Anybody can help me?
(the language code is C but I think this isn´t important)
Some of my teachers used online automated program grading systems like http://web-cat.org/
In the assignment they would specify a public api you must provide, and then they would just write tests against your functions, much like unit tests. They would intentionally pick tests that would exploit boundary conditions and other things students are notorious for not thinking about, and just call your code with many different inputs to try to get your code to fail.
Sometimes they would hardcode the expected values, other times they would allow values within a range, and other times they just did the assignment themselves and made it so your own code has to match the results produced by their code.
Obviously, not all programs can be effectively graded this way. It's also kinda error prone in that sometimes even the teacher made a mistake and overflowed an int or something, then the correct student submissions wouldn't match the teachers incorrect results. But, a system doesn't need to be perfect to be useful. But I think this raises an important point in that manually grading by reading the code won't necessarily reveal all mistakes either.
Another possibility is copy the submitted code, strip out all of the white space and search for substrings that must exist for the code to be correct and/or substrings that cannot exist for the code to be considered correct. The troublesome bit might be setting up to allow for some of the more tricky requirements such as [(a or c),((a or b) and c),((a or b) and c)], where the variables are the result of a boolean check as to if the substring related to the variable exists within the code.
For example, [("printf"),("for"), (not "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10")], would require that "printf" and "for" be substrings in the code, while "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10" i I'm not familiar with C, so I'm I'm assuming here that "printf" is required to be able to print anything without involving output streams, which could be accounted for by something like [("printf" or "out"),("for"), (not "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10")], where "out" is part of C code required to make use of output streams.
It might be possible to automatically find required substrings based on a "correct" code, but as others have mentioned, there are alternative ways to do things. Which is why hard-coding the "solution" is probably required. Even so, it's quite possible that you'll miss a required substring, and it'll be marked as wrong, but it's probably the only way you can do what you ask with some degree of success.
Regular expressions might be useful here.
Is there a way to read a file's data but continue reading the data on the hard drive past the end of file? For normal file I/O I could just use fread(), but, obviously, that will only read to the end of the file. And it might be beneficial if I add that I need this on a Windows computer.
All my Googling for a way to do this is instead coming up with results about unrelated topics concerning EOF, such as people having problems with normal I/O.
My reasoning for this is that I accidentally deleted part of the text in a text file I was working on, and it was an entire day's worth of work. I Googled up a bunch of file recovery stuff, but it all seems to be about recovering deleted files, where my problem is that the file is still there but without some of its information, and I'm hoping some of that data still exists directly after the currently marked end of file and is neither fragmented elsewhere or already claimed or otherwise overwritten. Since I can't find a program that helps with this specifically, I'm hoping I can quickly make something up for it (I understand that, depending on what is involved, this might not be as feasible as just redoing the work, but I'm hoping that's not the case).
As far as I can foresee, though I might not be correct (not sure, which is why I'm asking for help), there are 3 possibilities.
Worst of the three: I have to look up Windows API functions that allow direct access to the entire hard drive (similar to its functions for memory, perhaps? those I have experience with) and scan the entire thing for the data that I still have access to from the file and then just continue looking at what's after it.
Second: I can get a pointer to the file, then I still have to get raw access to HD but at least have a pointer to the file in it?
Best of the three: Just open the file for write access, seek to the end, then write a ways past EOF to claim more space, but first hope that Windows won't clean the data before it hands it over to me so that I get garbage data which was the previous data in that spot which would actually be what I'm looking for? This would be awesome if it were that simple, but I'm afraid to test it out because I'd lose the data if it failed, so hopefully someone else already knows. The PC in question is running Vista Home Premium if that matters to anyone that knows the gory details of Windows.
Do either of those three seem plausible? Whether yea or nay, I'm also open (and eager) for other suggestions, especially those which are better than my silly ideas, and especially if they come with direction toward specific functions to use to get the job done.
Also, if anyone else actually has heard of a recovery program that doesn't just recover deleted files but which would actually work for a situation like this, and which is free and trustworthy, that works too.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
You should get a utility for scanning the free space of a hard drive and recovering data from it, for example PhotoRec or foremost. Note however that if you've been using the machine much at all (even web browsing, which will create files in your cache), the data has likely already been overwritten. Do not save your recovery tools on the same hard drive, or even use the same PC to download them; get them from another computer and save them to a USB device, then run them from that device.
As for the conceptual content of your question, files are abstract objects. There is no such thing as data "past eof" except (depending on the implementation) perhaps up to the next multiple of the filesystem/disk "blocksize". Also it's possible (very likely) that your editor "saved" the file by truncating it and writing everything newly from the beginning, meaning there's not necessarily any correspondence between the old and new storage.
Your question doesn't make a lot of sense -- by definition there is nothing in the file after the EOF. By your further description, it appears that you want to read whatever happens to be on the disk after the last byte that is used by the file, which might be random garbage (unused space) or might be some other file. But in either case, this isn't 'data after the EOF' its just data on the disk that's not part of the file. Its even possible that it might be some other part of the same file, if the filesystem happens to lay out its data that way -- some filesystems scatter blocks in seemingly random ways across the disk and figuring out what bytes belong to which files requires understanding the filesystem metadata.
I am creating the file using Createfile function.
The C program is working fine but I am unable to see the created file in the respective folder.
Also "view hidden files" option is checked.
You can check if the function worked correctly by checking out the returned HANDLE value.
edit: A C program continues to function (incorrectly though) if a functions fails. It's therefore very important to check each and every returned HANDLE.
edit: The returned HANDLE should not be INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE. (But I can imagine that NULL isn't good either).
Two things to check for. Number one, did it actually succeed? From the docs:
Return Value
If the function succeeds, the return value is an open handle to the specified file, device, named pipe, or mail slot.
If the function fails, the return value is INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE. To get extended error information, call GetLastError.
Number two, are you looking in the right place. Frequently, people who run their code from within an IDE don't realise that their current working directory is not always what they think it is. You can system("cd"); or something similar to see what it actually is.
Or, you can use absolute pathnames to ensure the file is being created at the right place (for testing, that is - you should never use absolute paths for production code).
If neither of those two suggestions help, you should post the code that shows the particular problem. Preferably enough so that we don't have to come back and ask for more.