I got to know of a way to print the source code of a running code in C using the __FILE__ macro. As such I can seek the location and use putchar() to alter the contents of the file.
Is it possible to dynamically change the running code using this method?
Is it possible to dynamically change the running code using this method ?
No, because once a program is compiled it no longer depends on the source file.
If you want learn how to alter the behavior of an process that is already running from within the process itself, you need to learn about assembly for the architecture you're using, the executable file format on your system, and the process API on your system, at the very least.
As most other answers are explaining, in practical terms, most C implementations are compilers. So the executable that is running has only an indirect (and delayed) relation with the source code, because the source code had to be processed by the compiler to produce that executable.
Remember that a programming language is (not a software but...) a specification, written in some report. Read n1570, draft specification of C11. Most implementations of C are command-line compilers (e.g. GCC & Clang/LLVM in the free software realm), even if you might find interpreters.
However, with some operating systems (notably POSIX ones, such as MacOSX and Linux), you could dynamically load some plugin. Or you could create, in some other way (such as JIT compilation libraries like libgccjit or LLVM or libjit or GNU lightning), a fresh function and dynamically get a pointer to it (and that is not stricto sensu conforming to the C standard, where a function pointer should point to some existing function of your program).
On Linux, you might generate (at runtime of your own program, linked with -rdynamic to have its names usable from plugins, and with -ldl library to get the dynamic loader) some C code in some temporary source file e.g. /tmp/gencode.c, run a compilation (using e.g. system(3) or popen(3)) of that emitted code as a /tmp/gencode.so plugin thru a command like e.g. gcc -O1 -g -Wall -fPIC -shared /tmp/gencode.c -o /tmp/gencode.so, then dynamically load that plugin using dlopen(3), find function pointers (from some conventional name) in that loaded plugin with dlsym(3), and call indirectly that function pointer. My manydl.c program shows that is possible for many hundred thousands of generated C files and loaded plugins. I'm using similar tricks in my GCC MELT. See also this and that. Notice that you don't really "self-modify" C code, you more broadly generate additional C code, compile it (as some plugin, etc...), and then load it -as an extension or plugin- then use it.
(for pragmatical reasons including ease of debugging, I don't recommend overwriting some existing C file, but just emitting new C code in some fresh temporary .c file -from some internal AST-like representation- that you would later feed to the compiler)
Is it possible to dynamically change the running code?
In general (at least on Linux and most POSIX systems), the machine code sits in a read-only code segment of the virtual address space so you cannot change or overwrite it; but you can use indirection thru function pointers (in your C code) to call newly loaded code (e.g. from dlopen-ed plugins).
However, you might also read about homoiconic languages, metaprogramming, multi-staged programming, and try to use Common Lisp (e.g. using its SBCL implementation, which compile to machine code at every REPL interaction and at every eval). I also recommend reading SICP (an excellent and freely available introduction to programming, with some chapters related to metaprogramming approaches)
PS. Dynamic loading of plugins is also possible in Windows -which I don't know- with LoadLibrary, but with a very different (and incompatible) model. Read Levine's linkers and loaders.
A computer doesn't understand the code as we do. It compiles or interprets it and loads into memory. Our modification of code is just changing the file. One needs to compile it and link it with other libraries and load it into memory.
ptrace() is a syscall used to inject code into a running program. You can probably look into that and achieve whatever you are trying to do.
Inject hello world in a running program. I have tried and tested this sometime before.
Related
I'm currently trying to figure out the way to produce equivalent assembly code from corresponding C source file.
I've been using the C language for several years, but have little experience with assembly language.
I was able to output the assembly code using the -S option in gcc. However, the resulting assembly code contained call instructions which in turn make a jump to another function like _exp. This is not what I wanted, I needed a fully functional assembly code in a single file, with no dependency to other code.
Is it possible to achieve what I'm looking for?
To better describe the problem, I'm showing you my code here:
#include <math.h>
float sigmoid(float i){
return 1/(1+exp(-i));
}
The platform I am working on is Windows 10 64-bit, the compiler I'm using is cl.exe from MSbuild.
My initial objective was to see, at a lowest level possible, how computers calculate mathematical functions. The level where I decided to observe the calculation process is assembly code, and the mathematical function I've chosen was sigmoid defined as above.
_exp is the standard math library function double exp(double); apparently you're on a platform that prepends a leading underscore to C symbol names.
Given a .s that calls some library functions, build it the same way you would a .c file that calls library functions:
gcc foo.S -o foo -lm
You'll get a dynamic executable by default.
But if you really want all the code in one file with no external dependencies, you can link your .c into a static executable and disassemble that.
gcc -O3 -march=native foo.c -o foo -static -lm
objdump -drwC -Mintel foo > foo.s
There's no guarantee that the _exp implementation in libm.a (static library) is identical to the one you'd get in libm.so or libm.dll or whatever, because it's a different file. This is especially true for a function like memcpy where dynamic-linker tricks are often used to select an optimal version (for your CPU) at run-time.
It is not possible in general, there are exceptions sure, I could craft one so that means other folks can too, but it isnt an interesting program.
Normally your C program, your main() entry point is only a percentage of the code. There is a bootstrap that contains the actual entry point for the operating system to launch your program, this does some things that prepare your virtual memory space so that your program can run. Zeros .bss and other such things. that is often and or should be written in assembly language (otherwise you get a chicken and egg problem) but not an assembly language file you will see unless you go find the sources for the C library, you will often get an object as part of the toolchain along with other compiler libraries, etc.
Then if you make any C calls or create code that results in a compiler library call (perform a divide on a platform that doesnt support divide, perform floating point on a platform that doesnt have floating point, etc) that is another object that came from some other C or assembly that is part of the library or compiler sources and is not something you will see during the compile/assemble/link (the chain in toolchain) process.
So except for specifically crafted trivial programs or specifically crafted tools for this purpose (for specific likely baremetal platforms), you will not see your whole program turn into one big assembly source file before it gets assembled then linked.
If not baremetal then there is of course the operating system layer which you certainly would not get to see as part of your source code, ultimately the C library calls that need the system will have a place where they do that, all compiled to object/lib before you use them, and the assembly sources for the operating system side is part of some other source and build process somewhere else.
For example, I have a function func():
int func (int a, int b) {return a + b;}
Now I want write it to a file, so that I can use the system-call mmap to load it with PROT_EXEC and I can call it from another program.What should I do for it?
If you know what signature you need and a static library or the location of a shared library at compile time, you probably just want to include the header and link against the output library. If you want to invoke a function dynamically, you probably want dlopen / dlsym (UNIX) or LoadLibrary / GetProcAddress (Windows) for loading the libary dynamically and retrieving the address of the function by name.
Note that the cases where you actually need to load a library dynamically (at least explicitly) are pretty rare. This is often used for modular architectures (e.g. "plugins" or "extensions") where individual pieces of the application are distributed separately (which can be achieved more securely using IPC rather than dynamic loading... see my note below). Or for cases where your application is not allowed to include dependencies statically and needs to conditionally supply behavior based on the existence of certain library dependencies in the environment in which it happens to be executing. In most cases, though, you'll simply want to include a header that declares the symbols you need and compile for each target platform (possibly using #if...#else macros if there are symbols that vary across OSes or OS versions).
From a stability, security, and code complexity standpoint, I personally recommend that you avoid dynamic library loading. For core system functionality, it's reasonable to link against a dynamic library, but you'll want to do it in a way where the burden of dynamic loading is entirely on your toolchain (i.e. you shouldn't need to call dlopen or LoadLibrary explicitly). For other functionality, it is almost always better to statically link (assuming you distribute updates when there are security fixes for your dependencies), since this will avoid you getting broken by incompatible version updates and also prevent your users from experiencing dependency hell (you require version A but some other application requires version B); modular architectures are often better (and more securely) achieved through inter-process communication (IPC), since dynamically loaded libraries live in the process of the program that loads them (thereby giving them access to the entire process's virtual memory space), whereas with interprocess-communication, each component would be a separate process, and individual components would only have access to information that was given to it explicitly by the calling process, which would make it more difficult for a malicious component to steal data from the caller or other components or to produce instability.
The sanest thing if you want this to actually be used in the real world is probably to just compile the source as part of your program on each platform, like a regular function.
Next best is probably a separate process that you talk to rather than merge with.
Semi-sane (but still not a great choice, see our discussion in the other answer) would be making the shared library, like Michael Aaron Safyan said.
But if you want to know how it works just because - say, you want to write your own dynamic linker, or are doing some kind of runtime code generation like a JIT compiler, or if you just wanna know - you can make a raw code file.
To use it, what we'd have to do is similar to what the linker does - load the code at a particular address that it is made to work on and run it. There is position independent code that can run at any address, too.
Let's first get our function compiled and linked, then output into a raw image for a certain address. Assume the function is func in the file func.c and we're using gcc on Linux. (A Windows compiler would have similar options - gcc on Windows is exactly the same, I believe, but something like Digital Mars's C compiler does it differently with the linker command being /BINARY for instance)
Anyway, here's what I ran:
gcc -c func.c # makes func.o
ld func.o --oformat=binary -e func -o func.binary
This generates a file called func.binary. You can disassemble it most easily with ndisasm -b 64 func.binary (or -b 32 if you compiled the C in 32 bit mode) to confirm it looks right - I see an add instruction there, so looks good to me.
If you loaded that and mmaped then called it... it should work.
Problems will be quick to come up though:
If there's more than one function in that file, they'll all be squished together.
The addresses they try to use to call each other may be totally wrong.
Global variables and other static data will be messed up.
And there's more. The operating system uses more complex file formats for executables and libraries for a reason!
To go to the next step, you could consider writing an ELF or PE loader which reads that metadata off a standard file. Of course, once you get into much of this, you'll be doing exactly what the OS provides with dlopen and LoadLibrary.... so unless the goal is to just learn about the guts, just call those functions and call it done!
I would like to use GCC kind of as a JIT compiler, where I just compile short snippets of code every now and then. While I could of course fork a GCC process for each function I want to compile, I find that GCC's startup overhead is too large for that (it seems to be about 50 ms on my computer, which would make it take 50 seconds to compile 1000 functions). Therefore, I'm wondering if it's possible to run GCC as a daemon or use it as a library or something similar, so that I can just submit a function for compilation without the startup overhead.
In case you're wondering, the reason I'm not considering using an actual JIT library is because I haven't found one that supports all the features I want, which include at least good knowledge of the ABI so that it can handle struct arguments (lacking in GNU Lightning), nested functions with closure (lacking in libjit) and having a C-only interface (lacking in LLVM; I also think LLVM lacks nested functions).
And no, I don't think I can batch functions together for compilation; half the point is that I'd like to compile them only once they're actually called for the first time.
I've noticed libgccjit, but from what I can tell, it seems very experimental.
My answer is "No (you can't run GCC as a daemon process, or use it as a library)", assuming you are trying to use the standard GCC compiler code. I see at least two problems:
The C compiler deals in complete translation units, and once it has finished reading the source, compiles it and exits. You'd have to rejig the code (the compiler driver program) to stick around after reading each file. Since it runs multiple sub-processes, I'm not sure that you'll save all that much time with it, anyway.
You won't be able to call the functions you create as if they were normal statically compiled and linked functions. At the least you will have to load them (using dlopen() and its kin, or writing code to do the mapping yourself) and then call them via the function pointer.
The first objection deals with the direct question; the second addresses a question raised in the comments.
I'm late to the party, but others may find this useful.
There exists a REPL (read–eval–print loop) for c++ called Cling, which is based on the Clang compiler. A big part of what it does is JIT for c & c++. As such you may be able to use Cling to get what you want done.
The even better news is that Cling is undergoing an attempt to upstream a lot of the Cling infrastructure into Clang and LLVM.
#acorn pointed out that you'd ruled out LLVM and co. for lack of a c API, but Clang itself does have one which is the only one they guarantee stability for: https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/group__CINDEX.html
I want to be able to generate C code dynamically and re-load it quickly into my running C program.
I am on Linux, how could this be done?
Can a library .so file on Linux be re-compiled and reloaded at runtime?
Could it be compiled without producing a .so file, could the compiled output somehow go to memory and then be reloaded ? I want to reload the compiled code quickly.
What you want to do is reasonable, and I am doing exactly that in MELT (a high level domain specific language to extend GCC; MELT is compiled to C, thru a translator itself written in MELT).
First, when generating C code (or many other source languages), a good advice is to keep some sort of abstract syntax tree (AST) in memory. So build first the entire AST of the generated C code, then emit it as C syntax. Don't think of your code generation framework without an explicit AST (in other words, generation of C code with a bunch of printf is a maintenance nightmare, you want to have some intermediate representation).
Second, the main reason to generate C code is to take advantage of a good optimizing compiler (another reason is the portability and ubiquity of C). If you don't care about performance of the generated code (and TCC compiles very quickly C into a very naive and slow machine code) you could use some other approaches, e.g. using some JIT libraries like Gnu lightning (very quick generation of slow machine code), Gnu Libjit or ASMJIT (generated machine code is a bit better), LLVM or GCCJIT (good machine code generated, but generation time comparable to a compiler).
So if you generate C code and want it to run quickly, the compilation time of the C code is not negligible (since you probably would fork a gcc -O -fPIC -shared command to make some shared object foo.so out of your generated foo.c). By experience, generating C code takes much less time than compiling it (with gcc -O). In MELT, the generation of C code is more than 10x faster than its compilation by GCC (and usually 30x faster). But the optimizations done by a C compiler are worth it.
Once you emitted your C code, forked its compilation into a .so shared object, you can dlopen it. Don't be shy, my manydl.c example demonstrates that on Linux you can dlopen a big lot of shared objects (many hundreds of thousands). The real bottleneck is the compilation of the generated C code. In practice, you don't really need to dlclose on Linux (unless you are coding a server program needing to run for months); an unused shared module can stay practically dlopen-ed and you mostly are leaking process address space (which is a cheap resource), since most of that unused .so would be swapped-out. dlopen is done quickly, what takes time is the compilation of a C source, because you really want the optimization to be done by the C compiler.
You coul use many other different approaches, e.g. have a bytecode interpreter and generate for that bytecode, use Common Lisp (e.g. SBCL on Linux which compiles dynamically to machine code), LuaJit, Java, MetaOcaml etc.
As others suggested, you don't care much about the time to write a C file, and it will stay in filesystem cache in practice (see also this). And writing it is much faster than compiling it, so staying in memory is not worth the trouble. Use some tmpfs if you are concerned by I/O times.
addenda
You asked
Can a library .so file on Linux be re-compiled and re- loaded at runtime?
Of course yes: you should fork a command to build the library from the generated C code (e.g. a gcc -O -fPIC -shared generated.c -o generated.so, but you could do it indirectly e.g. by running a make -j, especially if the generated.so is big enough to make it relevant to split the generated.c in several C generated files!) and then you dynamically load your library with dlopen (giving a full path like /some/file/path/to/generated.so, and probably the RTLD_NOW flag, to it) and you have to use dlsym to find relevant symbols inside. Don't think of re-loading (a second time) the same generated.so, better to emit a unique generated1.c (then generated2.c etc...) C file, then to compile it to a unique generated1.so (the second time to generated2.so, etc...) then to dlopen it (and this can be done many hundred thousands of times). You may want to have, in the emitted generated*.c files, some constructor functions which would be executed at dlopen time of the generated*.so
Your base application program should have defined a convention about the set of dlsym-ed names (usually functions) and how they are called. It should only directly call functions in your generated*.so thru dlsym-ed function pointers. In practice you would decide for example that each generated*.c defines a function void dynfoo(int) and int dynbar(int,int) and use dlsym with "dynfoo" and "dynbar" and call these thru function pointers (returned by dlsym). You should also define conventions of how and when these dynfoo and dynbar would be called. You'll better link your base application with -rdynamic so that your generated*.c files could call your application functions.
You don't want your generated*.so to re-define existing names. For instance, you don't want to redefine malloc in your generated*.c and expect all heap allocation functions to magically use your new variant (that probably won't work, and if even if it did, it would be dangerous).
You probably won't bother to dlclose a dynamically loaded shared object, except at application clean-up and exit time (but I don't bother at all to dlclose). If you do dlclose some dynamically loaded generated*.so file, be sure that nothing is used in it: no pointers, not even return addresses in call frames, are existing to it.
P.S. the MELT translator is currently 57KLOC of MELT code translated to nearly 1770KLOC of C code.
Your best bet's probably the TCC compiler, which allows you to do exactly this --- compile source code, add it to your program, run it, all without touching files.
For a more robust but non-C-based solution, you should probably check out the LLVM project, which does much the same thing but from the perspective of producing JITs. You don't get to go via C, instead using a kind of abstract portable machine code, but the generated code is loads faster and it's under more active development.
OTOH if you want to do it all manually by shelling out to gcc, compiling a .so and then loading it yourself, dlopen() and dlclose() will do what you want.
Are you sure C is the right answer here? There are various interpreted languages such as Lua, Bigloo Scheme, or perhaps even Python that embed very well into an existing C application. You can write the dynamic parts using the extension language, which will support reloading code at runtime.
The obvious disadvantage is performance - if you absolutely need the raw speed of compiled C then these may be a no-go.
If you want to reload a library dynamically, you can use dlopen function (see mans). It opens a library .so file and returns a void* pointer to it, then you can get a pointer to any function/variable of your library with dlsym.
To compile your libraries in-memory, well, the best thing I think you can do is creating memory filesystem as described here.
i noticed that mingw adds alot of code before calling main(), i assumed its for parsing command line parameters since one of those functions is called __getmainargs(), and also lots of strings are added to the final executable, such as mingwm.dll and some error strings (incase the app crashed) says mingw runtime error or something like that.
my question is: is there a way to remove all this stuff? i dont need all these things, i tried tcc (tiny c compiler) it did the job. but not cross platform like gcc (solaris/mac)
any ideas?
thanks.
Yes, you really do need all those things. They're the startup and teardown code for the C environment that your code runs in.
Other than non-hosted environments such as low-level embedded solutions, you'll find pretty much all C environments have something like that. Things like /lib/crt0.o under some UNIX-like operating systems or crt0.obj under Windows.
They are vital to successful running of your code. You can freely omit library functions that you don't use (printf, abs and so on) but the startup code is needed.
Some of the things that it may perform are initialisation of atexit structures, argument parsing, initialisation of structures for the C runtime library, initialisation of C/C++ pre-main values and so forth.
It's highly OS-specific and, if there are things you don't want to do, you'll probably have to get the source code for it and take them out, in essence providing your own cut-down replacement for the object file.
You can safely assume that your toolchain does not include code that is not needed and could safely be left out.
Make sure you compiled without debug information, and run strip on the resulting executable. Anything more intrusive than that requires intimate knowledge of your toolchain, and can result in rather strange behaviour that will be hard to debug - i.e., if you have to ask how it could be done, you shouldn't try to do it.