It have often noticed that I would have been able to solve practical problems in C elegantly if there had been a way of creating a ‘virtual FILE’ and attaching the necessary callbacks for events such as buffer full, input requested, close, flush. It should then be possible to use a large part of the stdio.h functions, e.g. fprintf unchanged. Is there a framework enabling one to do this? If not, is it feasible with a moderate amount of effort, on at least some platforms?
Possible applications would be:
To write to or read from a dynamic or static region of memory.
To write to multiple files in parallel.
To read from a thread or co-routine generating data.
To apply a filter to another (virtual or real) FILE.
Support for file formats with indirection (like #include).
A C pre-processor(?).
I am less interested in solutions for specific cases than in a framework to let you roll your own FILE. I am also not looking for a virtual filesystem, but rather virtual FILE*s that I can pass to the CRT.
To my disappointment I have never seen anything of the sort; as far as I can see C11 considers FILE entirely up to the language implementer, which is perhaps reasonable if one wishes to keep the language (+library) specifications small but sad if you compare it with Java I/O streams.
I feel sure that virtual FILEs must be possible with any (fully) open source implementation of the C run-time, but I imagine there might be a large number of details making it trickier than it seems, and if it has already been done it would be a shame to reduplicate the effort. It would also be greatly preferable not to have to modify the CRT code. Without open source one might be able to reverse engineer the functions supplied, but I fear the result would be far too vulnerable to changes in unsupported features, unless there were a commitment to a set of interfaces. I suppose too that any system for which one can write a device driver would allow one to create a virtual device, but I suspect that of being unnecessarily low-level and of requiring one to write privileged code.
I have to admit that while I have code that would have benefited from virtual FILEs, I have no current requirement for it; nonetheless it is something I have often wondered about and that I imagine could be of interest to others.
This is somewhat similar to a-reader-interface-that-consumes-files-and-char-in-c, but there the questioner did not hope to return a virtual FILE; the answer, however, using fmemopen, did.
There is no standard C interface for creating virtual FILE*s, but both the GNU and the BSD standard libraries include one. On linux (glibc), you can use fopencookie; on most *BSD systems, funopen (including Mac OS X). (See Note 1)
The two interfaces are similar but slightly different in some details. However, it is usually very simple to adapt code written for one interface to the other.
These are not complete virtualizations. They associated the FILE* with four callbacks and a void* context (the "cookie" in fopencookie). The callbacks are read, write, seek and close; there are no callbacks for flush or tell operations. Still, this is sufficient for many simple FILE* adaptors.
For a simple example, see the two answers to Write simultaneousely to two streams.
Notes:
funopen is derived from "functional open", not from "file unopen".
Related
I need a robust cross-platform solution to read a specific binary file in C. Let's say I want to fopen() such (maybe big) file, allocate a temporary buffer, and then fread() a sequence of bytes
to update my SHA1_CTX and finally close my FILE, finalize sha1 and go on. Quite trivial, right?
But, there is one thing I doubt: What if the filename is not ASCII?
Let's say I will have:
/Users/me/Projects/my_file.bin
/home/me/файлы/работа/мой_файл.bin
С:\\我的檔案\\我的工作.bin
D:\\Folder🙈\\🙂👍😘.bin
Can fopen handle such paths? If not, what can I do? I may write some platform-specific code or look for some cross-platform library, but it is extremely important for my application to be as small as possible, moreover it is written in C, so QT, Boost, etc., are not applicable.
Thanks.
On essentially every platform except Windows, the expectation is that you pass filenames to the standard functions as normal char[] strings represented in the character encoding of the locale that's being used, and on all modern systems that will be UTF-8. You can either:
honor this by ensuring that you call setlocale(LC_ALL,"") (or setlocale(LC_CTYPE,"") if you don't want to use other locale features) and treating all local text input and output as being in whatever that encoding is (making users happy but possibly making trouble when some external input (e.g. from network) in UTF-8 is not representable, or
just always work in UTF-8, and hope passing UTF-8 strings through to filesystem access functions works by virtue of them being abstract byte arrays.
Unfortunately none of this works on Windows, but it will work in the near future. It also works if you build your application with Cygwin or midipix. Short of that, you need shims to make things work on Windows, and it's a huge pain.
It is operating system specific and file system specific.
You might not know what encoding is used for the file path. The user of your program should know that.
However, in 2018, UTF-8 tend to be used everywhere. In practice, that is not always the case today (specially on Windows).
BTW, different OSes have different restrictions on the file path. On Linux, in principle, you could have a file name containing only a tab and a return character (of course that is very poor taste, and nobody does that in practice; for details read path_resolution(7)). On Windows, that is not allowed.
Can fopen handle such paths?
Yes. The C11 standard (read n1570 for details) does not speak of character encoding.
A different question is what your particular implementation is doing with such paths. The evil is in the details, and they could be ugly.
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.
So I've run into an interesting design pattern and I wanted to know if you guys had an opinion on it.
Basically, the design is passing everything around as a pre-serialized type. There is no "types" for the returns, for example. It is passed as a simple uint8_t*. There is a defined header that "tells" you what is in the buffer, how big it is, what the version of the buffer is, ect. I call it "pre-serialized" because it forces flattening of all structures.
The pros:
You can easily write it (or even a set of it) to what ever you want. Files, IO, whatever.
Can store arbitrary data.
The Cons: IMHO:
No type safety is going to be a nightmare
The programmer has to parse the code. Even if there is an enumerated type, the user would have to know what that type means. Even if there are functions to parse the type, the programmer has to know that is the function to call.
Version hell: changing code will cause a ripple effect of errors. Because everywhere is parsing it differently, you have no idea where the code works or where it is broken.
It is viral: because it is flat, you can't "insert" the header on the end of outside data. You could wrap the call if you copy your "data", but this could cause an unnecessary copy that would be SLOW. So either your code is slower than it needs to be, or you conform to this data structure.
It isn't human readable OR debug-able.
Have you seen this design pattern before? Is there a name for this design pattern? Things I missed?
Is there a name for this design pattern?
Well, Legacy Code? :) I have seen such design in 30 years old Cobol systems...
The pros you have stated are easily reachable also by using XML format (or JSON):
You can easily write it (or even a set of it) to what ever you want. Files, IO, whatever - most of all, web services!
Can store arbitrary data.
Furthermore, all your cons are eliminated.
The only pro I can see in your solution is conciseness - when every byte counts and you need to avoid any overhead as too expensive, then this is nice.
Added: Cobol has a feature to easily define the structure of such serialized data, see PICTURE clause. Reading the data is very easy then, you read them as variables. (Like if you have a binary data and define a struct in the C language and typecast the binary to the struct.)
As Honza said this would be normal in Legacy Cobol/PL1 (was there a Cobol/PL1 conversion or interface to COBOL programs ???).
In COBOL this design pattern would make sense, not sure about C though (one of the binary serialization packages or JSON etc might be more sensible).
In Cobol, you would have a Cobol copybook which all programs would use and could edit the data using the Cobol Copybook (with something like file-aid or Microfocus Data Editor).
Why use this "design pattern" in Cobol:
Regression testing of Modules; you can write a driver module like
Read Test-data-file
while more-data
Call Module
write Result to output-file
Read Test-data-file
end
You can then do a compare between Output from the
re-Change Program to the changed program.
Testing - some times you can use a "production file" in testing
A file provides trace or snapshot of what is going on, this can be very useful.
Easy to reorganize Batch streams:
Split a programs up (and pass the data via file). There variety of reason for doing this including
program has gotten to big and is hard to maintain.
Sorting the data
Performance (use a file rather than hitting the DB multiple times)
new uses for extracted data
While your cons are valid for C, they will be less of an issue in Cobol.
The key to using this "design pattern" is being able to edit/view/compare the format. If you can not edit/view/compare a file, I do not see the point
When writing safe code in straight C, I'm sick and tired of coming up with arbitrary
numbers to represent limitations -- specifically, the maximum amount of
memory to allocate for a single line of text. I know I can always say
stuff like
#define MAX_LINE_LENGTH 1024
and then pass that macro to functions such as snprintf().
I work and code in NetBSD, which has a sysctl(3) variable called
"user.line_max" designed for this very purpose. So I don't need to come up
with an arbitrary number like MAX_LINE_LENGTH, above. I just read the
"user.line_max" sysctl variable, which by the way is settable by the user.
My question is whether this is the Right Thing in terms of safety and
portability. Perhaps different operating systems have a different name for
this sysctl, but I'm more interested in whether I should be using this
technique at all.
And for the record, "portability" excludes Microsoft Windows in this case.
Well the linux SYSCTL (2) man page has this to say in the Notes section:
Glibc does not provide a wrapper for this system call; call it using syscall(2).
Or rather... don't call it: use of this system call has long been discouraged, and it is so unloved that it is likely to disappear in a future kernel version. Remove it from your programs now; use the /proc/sys interface instead.
So that is one consideration.
Not a good idea. Even if it weren't for what Duck told you, relying on a system-wide setting that's runtime-variable is bad design and error-prone. If you're going to go to the trouble of having buffer size limits be variable (which typically requires dynamic allocation and checking for failure) then you should go the last step and make it configurable on a more local scope.
With your example of buffer size limits, opinions differ as to what's the best practice. Some people think you should always use dynamically-growing buffers with no hard limit. Others prefer fixed limits sufficiently large that reasonable data would not exceed them. Or, as you've noted, configurable limits are an option. In choosing what's right for your application, I would consider the user experience implications. Sure users don't like arbitrary limits, but they also don't like it when accidentally (or by somebody else's malice) reading data with no newlines in it causes your application to consume unbounded amounts of memory, start swapping, and/or eventually crash or bog down the whole system.
The nearest portable construct for this is "getconf LINE_MAX" or the equivalent C.
1) Check out the Single Unix Specification, keyword: "limits"
2) s/safety/security/
I'm writing a little parser and I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of the different ways to load the data to be parsed. The two ways that I thought of are:
Load the file's contents into a string then parse the string (access the character at an array position)
Parse as reading the file stream (fgetc)
The former will allow me to have two functions: one for parse_from_file and parse_from_string, however I believe this mode will take up more memory. The latter will not have that disadvantage of using more memory.
Does anyone have any advice on the matter?
Reading the entire file in or memory mapping it will be faster, but may cause issues if you want your language to be able to #include other files as these would be memory mapped or read into memory as well.
The stdio functions would work well because they usually try to buffer up data for you, but they are also general purpose so they also try to look out for usage patterns which differ from reading a file from start to finish, but that shouldn't be too much overhead.
A good balance is to have a large circular buffer (x * 2 * 4096 is a good size) which you load with file data and then have your tokenizer read from. Whenever a block's worth of data has been passed to your tokenizer (and you know that it is not going to be pushed back) you can refill that block with new data from the file and update some buffer location info.
Another thing to consider is if there is any chance that the tokenizer would ever need to be able to be used to read from a pipe or from a person typing directly in some text. In these cases your reads may return less data than you asked for without it being at the end of the file, and the buffering method I mentioned above gets more complicated. The stdio buffering is good for this as it can easily be switched to/from line or block buffering (or no buffering).
Using gnu fast lex (flex, but not the Adobe Flash thing) or similar can greatly ease the trouble with all of this. You should look into using it to generate the C code for your tokenizer (lexical analysis).
Whatever you do you should try to make it so that your code can easily be changed to use a different form of next character peek and consume functions so that if you change your mind you won't have to start over.
Consider using lex (and perhaps yacc, if the language of your grammar matches its capabilities). Lex will handle all the fiddly details of lexical analysis for you and produce efficient code. You can probably beat its memory footprint by a few bytes, but how much effort do you want to expend into that?
The most efficient on a POSIX system would probably neither of the two (or a variant of the first if you like): just map the file read-only with mmap, and parse it then. Modern systems are quite efficient with that in that they prefetch data when they detect a streaming access etc., multiple instances of your program that parse the same file will get the same physical pages of memory etc. And the interfaces are relatively simple to handle, I think.