I'm using microcontroller to make some ADC measurements. I have an issue when I try to compile following code using -O2 optimization, MCU freezes when PrintVal() function is present in code. I did some debugging and it turns out that when I add -fno-inline compiler flag, the code will run fine even with PrintVal() function.
Here is some background:
AdcIsr.c contains interrupt that is executed when ADC finishes it's job. This file also contains ISRInit() function that initializes variable that will hold value after conversion. In main loop will wait for interrupt and only then access AdcMeas.value.
AdcIsr.c
static volatile uin16_t* isrVarPtr = NULL;
ISR()
{
uint8_t tmp = readAdc();
*isrVarPtr = tmp;
}
void ISRInit(volatile uint16_t *var)
{
isrVarPtr = var;
}
AdcMeas.c
typedef struct{
uint8_t id;
volatile uint16_t value;
}AdcMeas_t;
static AdcMeas_t AdcMeas = {0};
const AdcMeas_t* AdcMeasGetStructPtr()
{
return &AdcMeas;
}
main.c
void PrintVal(const AdcMeas_t* data)
{
printf("AdcMeas %d value: %d\r\n", data->id, data->value);
}
void StartMeasurement()
{
...
AdcOn();
...
}
int main()
{
ISRInit(AdcMeasGetStructPtr()->value);
while(1)
{
StartMeasurement();
WaitForISR();
PrintVal(AdcMeasGetStructPtr());
DelayMs(1000);
}
}
Questions:
Is there something wrong with usage of const AdcMeas_t* data as argument of the PrintVal() function? I understand that AdcMeas.value may change inside interrupt and PrintVal() may be outdated.
AdcMeas contains a 'generic getter'. Is this a good practice to use this sort of function to allow read-only access to static structure? or should I implement AdcMeasGetId() and AdcMeasGetValue functions (note that this struct has only 2 members, what if it has 8 members)?
I know this code is a bit dumb (waiting for interrupt in while loop), this is just an example.
Some bugs:
You have no header files, neither library include or your own ones. This means that everything is hopelessly broken until you fix that. You cannot do multiple file projects in C without header files.
*isrVarPtr = tmp; Here you write to a variable without protection from race conditions. If the main program reads this variable in several steps, you risk getting incorrect data. You need to protect against race conditions or guarantee atomic access.
const AdcMeasGetStructPtr() is gibberish and there is no way that the return &AdcMeas; inside it would compile with a conforming C compiler.
If you have an old but conforming C90 compiler, the return type will get treated as int. Otherwise, if you have a modern C compiler, not even the function definition will compiler. So it would seem that something is very wrong with your compiler, which is a greater concern than this bug.
Declaring the typedef struct in the C file and then returning a pointer to it doesn't make any sense. You need to re-design this module. You could have a getter function returning an instance to a private struct, if there is only ever going to be 1 instance of it (singleton). However, as mentioned, it needs to handle race conditions.
Stylistic concerns:
Empty parenthesis () in a function declaration is almost always wrong in C. This is obsolete style and means "accept any parameter". C++ is different here.
int main() doesn't make any sense at all in a microcontroller system. You should use some implementation-defined form suitable for freestanding programs. The most commonly supported form is void main (void).
DelayMs(1000); is highly questionable code in any embedded system. There should never be a reason why you'd want to hang up your MCU being useless, with max current consumption, for a whole second.
Overall it seems you would benefit from a "continuous conversion" ADC. ADCs that support continuous conversion just dump their latest read in the data register and you can pick it up with polling whenever you need it. Catching all ADC interrupts is really just for hard realtime systems, signal processing and similar.
I have two files:
int PolyMod(int s);
void CreateChecksum(int isTestNet, int *mod) {
*mod = PolyMod(isTestNet == 0 ? 5 : 9);
}
and
int PolyMod(int s);
void CreateChecksum(int isTestNet, int *mod) {
if (isTestNet == 0) {
*mod = PolyMod(5);
} else {
*mod = PolyMod(9);
}
}
Somehow their assembly result is different. Why? You can see the assembly created from the first file here and from the second file here.
Doesn't the compiler know that they're equivalent, and one is faster? Was the reason they had different assemblies was that they're exactly equally fast, and the only difference between them was the order of operations?
I've wondered if the difference was caused by static branch prediction. After experimenting with __builtin_expect, I believe that the answer is no.
It seems that the problem is a missed optimization bug, caused by GIMPLE in GCC. Clang doesn't have this bug, so it generates the same assembly.
I've reported this to GCC; the bug can be tracked here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
C does not impose any restriction about what instructions to generate in hardware.
It is allowed to generate any possible instruction as time as the semantics of the generated code remains the same as the abstract semantics of C (defined in ISO 9899).
The compiler will transform the C code in many intermediate languages(combinators, rtl, ssa, generic, gimple, etc etc), in particular in RTL and from there there is generated hardware dependent code.
You should study the intermediate languages in order to understand why the generated assembler is different.
Nginx seems to have a built-in function called ngx_random that's used in various places of the source code. But it seems just to be defined as:#define ngx_random random
If I'm understanding this correctly, that means all the places Nginx calling ngx_random() it's just calling (on Linux platform) random(). From the doc it isn't clear to me that it is guaranteed uniform distribution with a given range in any way, and I'm suspecting that similar to rand(), it's not uniform at all, and will only be uniform if range n is divisible by RAND_MAX.
But the nice thing of using ngx_random is I believe the system takes care of the seeding automatically, during startup time. Whereas if I want to use something truly uniform with my range, like drand48, I believe will have to add a new line after the following in ngx_posix_init.c?
srandom(((unsigned) ngx_pid << 16) ^ tp->sec ^ tp->msec);
srand48(((unsigned) ngx_pid << 16) ^ tp->sec ^ tp->msec); //Added so that I can use drand48
So is my assumption on ngx_random correct? And if I want to use drand48 in any place of the various modules, is the above the only way doing it?
I never tried it myself with nginx, so consider it just an idea. On Linux (or similar ELF based systems, e.g. Solaris) you could, using LD_LIBRARY_PRELOAD trick, to replace and/or intercept weak symbols from standard C library. It is often used to intercept and/or replace malloc, but might work for you as well
Code sample (untested, not compiled, just to demonstrate an idea)
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <dlfcn.h>
static void (*real_srandom)(uint32_t) = NULL;
static void srandom_init(void) {
real_srandom = dlsym(RTLD_NEXT, "srandom");
if (NULL == real_srandom) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error in `dlsym`: %s\n", dlerror());
}
}
void srandom(uint32_t seed) {
if(real_srandom == NULL) {
srandom_init();
}
real_srandom(seed);
srand48(seed);
}
You could write SO to replace calls to random(3) as well, replacing it with your own implementation. The only thing you cannot replace is RAND_MAX, as it is compiled in constant.
I would be happy to hear if this trick works for you or not
I am trying to make a simple kernel using C. Everything loads and works fine, and I can access the video memory and display characters, but when i try to implement a simple puts function for some reason it doesn't work. I've tried my own code and other's. Also, when I try to use a variable which is declared outside a function it doesn't seem to work. This is my own code:
#define PUTCH(C, X) pos = putc(C, X, pos)
#define PUTSTR(C, X) pos = puts(C, X, pos)
int putc(char c, char color, int spos) {
volatile char *vidmem = (volatile char*)(0xB8000);
if (c == '\n') {
spos += (160-(spos % 160));
} else {
vidmem[spos] = c;
vidmem[spos+1] = color;
spos += 2;
}
return spos;
}
int puts(char* str, char color, int spos) {
while (*str != '\0') {
spos = putc(*str, color, spos);
str++;
}
return spos;
}
int kmain(void) {
int pos = 0;
PUTSTR("Hello, world!", 6);
return 0;
}
The spos (starting position) stuff is because I can't make a global position variable. putc works fine, but puts doesn't. I also tried this:
unsigned int k_printf(char *message, unsigned int line) // the message and then the line #
{
char *vidmem = (char *) 0xb8000;
unsigned int i=0;
i=(line*80*2);
while(*message!=0)
{
if(*message=='\n') // check for a new line
{
line++;
i=(line*80*2);
*message++;
} else {
vidmem[i]=*message;
*message++;
i++;
vidmem[i]=7;
i++;
};
};
return(1);
};
int kmain(void) {
k_printf("Hello, world!", 0);
return 0;
}
Why doesn't this work? I tried using my puts implementation with my native GCC (without the color and spos data and using printf("%c")) and it worked fine.
Since you're having an issue with global variables in general, the problem most likely has to-do with where the linker is placing your "Hello World" string literal in memory. This is due to the fact that string literals are typically stored in a read-only portion of global memory by the linker ... You have not detailed exactly how you are compiling and linking your kernel, so I would attempt something like the following and see if that works:
int kmain(void)
{
char array[] = "Hello World\n";
int pos = 0;
puts(array, 0, pos);
return 0;
}
This will allocate the character array on the stack rather than global memory, and avoid any issues with where the linker decides to place global variables.
In general, when creating a simple kernel, you want to compile and link it as a flat binary with no dependencies on external OS libraries. If you're working with a multiboot compliant boot-loader like GRUB, you may want to look at the bare-bones sample code from the multiboot specification pages.
Since this got references outside of SO, I'll add a universal answer
There are several kernel examples around the internet, and many are in various states of degradation - the Multiboot sample code for instance lacks compilation instructions. If you're looking for a working start, a known good example can be found at http://wiki.osdev.org/Bare_Bones
In the end there are three things that should be properly dealt with:
The bootloader will need to properly load the kernel, and as such they must agree on a certain format. GRUB defines the fairly common standard that is Multiboot, but you can roll your own. It boils down that you need to choose a file format and locations where all the parts of your kernel and related metadata end up in memory before the kernel code will ever get executed. One would typically use the ELF format with multiboot which contains that information in its headers
The compiler must be able to create binary code that is relevant to the platform. A typical PC boots in 16-bit mode after which the BIOS or bootloader might often decide to change it. Typically, if you use GRUB legacy, the Multiboot standard puts you in 32-bit mode by its contract. If you used the default compiler settings on a 64-bit linux, you end up with code for the wrong architecture (which happens to be sufficiently similar that you might get something that looks like the result you want). Compilers also like to rename sections or include platform-specific mechanisms and security features such as stack probing or canaries. Especially compilers on windows tend to inject host-specific code that of course breaks when run without the presence of Windows. The example provided deliberately uses a separate compiler to prevent all sorts of problems in this category.these
The linker must be able to combine the code in ways needed to create output that adheres to the bootloader's contract. A linker has a default way of generating a binary, and typically it's not at all what you want. In pretty much all cases, choosing gnu ld for this task means that you're required to write a linker script that puts all the sections in the places where you want. Omitted sections will result in data going missing, sections at the wrong location might make an image unbootable. Assuming you have gnu ld, you can also use the bundled nm and objdump tools besides your hex editor of choice to tell you where things have appeared in your output binary, and with it, check if you've been following the contract that has been set for you.
Problems of this fundamental type are eventually tracked back to not following one or more of the steps above. Use the reference at the top of this answer and go find the differences.
I want to write a piece of code that changes itself continuously, even if the change is insignificant.
For example maybe something like
for i in 1 to 100, do
begin
x := 200
for j in 200 downto 1, do
begin
do something
end
end
Suppose I want that my code should after first iteration change the line x := 200 to some other line x := 199 and then after next iteration change it to x := 198 and so on.
Is writing such a code possible ? Would I need to use inline assembly for that ?
EDIT :
Here is why I want to do it in C:
This program will be run on an experimental operating system and I can't / don't know how to use programs compiled from other languages. The real reason I need such a code is because this code is being run on a guest operating system on a virtual machine. The hypervisor is a binary translator that is translating chunks of code. The translator does some optimizations. It only translates the chunks of code once. The next time the same chunk is used in the guest, the translator will use the previously translated result. Now, if the code gets modified on the fly, then the translator notices that, and marks its previous translation as stale. Thus forcing a re-translation of the same code. This is what I want to achieve, to force the translator to do many translations. Typically these chunks are instructions between to branch instructions (such as jump instructions). I just think that self modifying code would be fantastic way to achieve this.
You might want to consider writing a virtual machine in C, where you can build your own self-modifying code.
If you wish to write self-modifying executables, much depends on the operating system you are targeting. You might approach your desired solution by modifying the in-memory program image. To do so, you would obtain the in-memory address of your program's code bytes. Then, you might manipulate the operating system protection on this memory range, allowing you to modify the bytes without encountering an Access Violation or '''SIG_SEGV'''. Finally, you would use pointers (perhaps '''unsigned char *''' pointers, possibly '''unsigned long *''' as on RISC machines) to modify the opcodes of the compiled program.
A key point is that you will be modifying machine code of the target architecture. There is no canonical format for C code while it is running -- C is a specification of a textual input file to a compiler.
Sorry, I am answering a bit late, but I think I found exactly what you are looking for : https://shanetully.com/2013/12/writing-a-self-mutating-x86_64-c-program/
In this article, they change the value of a constant by injecting assembly in the stack. Then they execute a shellcode by modifying the memory of a function on the stack.
Below is the first code :
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
void foo(void);
int change_page_permissions_of_address(void *addr);
int main(void) {
void *foo_addr = (void*)foo;
// Change the permissions of the page that contains foo() to read, write, and execute
// This assumes that foo() is fully contained by a single page
if(change_page_permissions_of_address(foo_addr) == -1) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error while changing page permissions of foo(): %s\n", strerror(errno));
return 1;
}
// Call the unmodified foo()
puts("Calling foo...");
foo();
// Change the immediate value in the addl instruction in foo() to 42
unsigned char *instruction = (unsigned char*)foo_addr + 18;
*instruction = 0x2A;
// Call the modified foo()
puts("Calling foo...");
foo();
return 0;
}
void foo(void) {
int i=0;
i++;
printf("i: %d\n", i);
}
int change_page_permissions_of_address(void *addr) {
// Move the pointer to the page boundary
int page_size = getpagesize();
addr -= (unsigned long)addr % page_size;
if(mprotect(addr, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC) == -1) {
return -1;
}
return 0;
}
It is possible, but it's most probably not portably possible and you may have to contend with read-only memory segments for the running code and other obstacles put in place by your OS.
This would be a good start. Essentially Lisp functionality in C:
http://nakkaya.com/2010/08/24/a-micro-manual-for-lisp-implemented-in-c/
Depending on how much freedom you need, you may be able to accomplish what you want by using function pointers. Using your pseudocode as a jumping-off point, consider the case where we want to modify that variable x in different ways as the loop index i changes. We could do something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
void multiply_x (int * x, int multiplier)
{
*x *= multiplier;
}
void add_to_x (int * x, int increment)
{
*x += increment;
}
int main (void)
{
int x = 0;
int i;
void (*fp)(int *, int);
for (i = 1; i < 6; ++i) {
fp = (i % 2) ? add_to_x : multiply_x;
fp(&x, i);
printf("%d\n", x);
}
return 0;
}
The output, when we compile and run the program, is:
1
2
5
20
25
Obviously, this will only work if you have finite number of things you want to do with x on each run through. In order to make the changes persistent (which is part of what you want from "self-modification"), you would want to make the function-pointer variable either global or static. I'm not sure I really can recommend this approach, because there are often simpler and clearer ways of accomplishing this sort of thing.
A self-interpreting language (not hard-compiled and linked like C) might be better for that. Perl, javascript, PHP have the evil eval() function that might be suited to your purpose. By it, you could have a string of code that you constantly modify and then execute via eval().
The suggestion about implementing LISP in C and then using that is solid, due to portability concerns. But if you really wanted to, this could also be implemented in the other direction on many systems, by loading your program's bytecode into memory and then returning to it.
There's a couple of ways you could attempt to do that. One way is via a buffer overflow exploit. Another would be to use mprotect() to make the code section writable, and then modify compiler-created functions.
Techniques like this are fun for programming challenges and obfuscated competitions, but given how unreadable your code would be combined with the fact you're exploiting what C considers undefined behavior, they're best avoided in production environments.
In standard C11 (read n1570), you cannot write self modifying code (at least without undefined behavior). Conceptually at least, the code segment is read-only.
You might consider extending the code of your program with plugins using your dynamic linker. This require operating system specific functions. On POSIX, use dlopen (and probably dlsym to get newly loaded function pointers). You could then overwrite function pointers with the address of new ones.
Perhaps you could use some JIT-compiling library (like libgccjit or asmjit) to achieve your goals. You'll get fresh function addresses and put them in your function pointers.
Remember that a C compiler can generate code of various size for a given function call or jump, so even overwriting that in a machine specific way is brittle.
My friend and I encountered this problem while working on a game that self-modifies its code. We allow the user to rewrite code snippets in x86 assembly.
This just requires leveraging two libraries -- an assembler, and a disassembler:
FASM assembler: https://github.com/ZenLulz/Fasm.NET
Udis86 disassembler: https://github.com/vmt/udis86
We read instructions using the disassembler, let the user edit them, convert the new instructions to bytes with the assembler, and write them back to memory. The write-back requires using VirtualProtect on windows to change page permissions to allow editing the code. On Unix you have to use mprotect instead.
I posted an article on how we did it, as well as the sample code.
These examples are on Windows using C++, but it should be very easy to make cross-platform and C only.
This is how to do it on windows with c++. You'll have to VirtualAlloc a byte array with read/write protections, copy your code there, and VirtualProtect it with read/execute protections. Here's how you dynamically create a function that does nothing and returns.
#include <cstdio>
#include <Memoryapi.h>
#include <windows.h>
using namespace std;
typedef unsigned char byte;
int main(int argc, char** argv){
byte bytes [] = { 0x48, 0x31, 0xC0, 0x48, 0x83, 0xC0, 0x0F, 0xC3 }; //put code here
//xor %rax, %rax
//add %rax, 15
//ret
int size = sizeof(bytes);
DWORD protect = PAGE_READWRITE;
void* meth = VirtualAlloc(NULL, size, MEM_COMMIT, protect);
byte* write = (byte*) meth;
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
write[i] = bytes[i];
}
if(VirtualProtect(meth, size, PAGE_EXECUTE_READ, &protect)){
typedef int (*fptr)();
fptr my_fptr = reinterpret_cast<fptr>(reinterpret_cast<long>(meth));
int number = my_fptr();
for(int i = 0; i < number; i++){
printf("I will say this 15 times!\n");
}
return 0;
} else{
printf("Unable to VirtualProtect code with execute protection!\n");
return 1;
}
}
You assemble the code using this tool.
While "true" self modifying code in C is impossible (the assembly way feels like slight cheat, because at this point, we're writing self modifying code in assembly and not in C, which was the original question), there might be a pure C way to make the similar effect of statements paradoxically not doing what you think are supposed do to. I say paradoxically, because both the ASM self modifying code and the following C snippet might not superficially/intuitively make sense, but are logical if you put intuition aside and do a logical analysis, which is the discrepancy which makes paradox a paradox.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
struct Foo
{
char a;
char b[4];
} foo;
foo.a = 42;
strncpy(foo.b, "foo", 3);
printf("foo.a=%i, foo.b=\"%s\"\n", foo.a, foo.b);
*(int*)&foo.a = 1918984746;
printf("foo.a=%i, foo.b=\"%s\"\n", foo.a, foo.b);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o foo foo.c && ./foo
foo.a=42, foo.b="foo"
foo.a=42, foo.b="bar"
First, we change the value of foo.a and foo.b and print the struct. Then we change only the value of foo.a, but observe the output.