How can I pass an array between Erlang and an external C/C++ programs, assuming that the array is created and initialized by the Erlang program? ( I do not want to copy the whole array)?
P.S: I need a shared memory environment between C/C++ and Erlang
If by "array" you mean something that your C/C++ can easily access as an array, then you'll want to use an Erlang binary. These are easily handled in C/C++ code written as a NIF or driver. For example, given an Erlang function that takes a binary as an argument, you could implement it in C as a NIF as shown below:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "erl_nif.h"
static ERL_NIF_TERM
binfunc(ErlNifEnv* env, int argc, const ERL_NIF_TERM argv[])
{
ErlNifBinary bin;
unsigned i;
if (argc != 1 || !enif_inspect_binary(env, argv[0], &bin))
return enif_make_badarg(env);
printf("received binary of length %zu\r\ndata: ", bin.size);
for (i = 0; i < bin.size; ++i)
printf("%x ", bin.data[i]);
printf("\r\n");
return enif_make_atom(env, "ok");
}
static ErlNifFunc nif_funcs[] =
{
{"binfunc", 1, binfunc}
};
ERL_NIF_INIT(nif,nif_funcs,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL)
The Erlang function would be implemented like this:
-module(nif).
-export([binfunc/1]).
-on_load(init/0).
init() ->
erlang:load_nif("./nif", 0).
binfunc(_Bin) ->
{error, "nif not loaded"}.
Running it would look like this:
Erlang/OTP 17 [RELEASE CANDIDATE 2] [erts-6.0] [source-f91fbb2] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
Eshell V6.0 (abort with ^G)
1> nif:binfunc(<<"abcdef">>).
received binary of length 6
data: 61 62 63 64 65 66
ok
This implements just a simple array of chars, but using Erlang's powerful bit syntax you can easily implement structs, arrays, etc. that you can exchange between Erlang and C/C++.
Related
I have an array of data in a C++/CLI array that I can pass to a native function using pin_ptr<T>, no problem so far. Now, however, I need to pass the array on to a C++/STL function that expects a container such as std::array or std::vector.
The easy way of doing this (which I did first), is to copy element by element.
The second-easiest way is to call std::copy(), see the answer to this question: convert System::array to std::vector.
However, I want to skip the entire copying step and just use the pointer instead. Seeing as std::array requires a template argument to determine its length, I can't create one at runtime (but please do correct me if I'm wrong). Is there a way to create a vector or a different type of STL container, without unnecessary copying of data?
No it's not possible to do without copying, not with the standard containers anyway.
If you're still okay with copying then you should look at the std::vector constructor because I think the easiest way would be to do e.g.
std::vector<T>(your_pointer, your_pointer + number_of_elements)
If you definitely want to avoid copying, then it's not really that hard to write a simple wrapper around the pointer, including simple iterators needed for iteration (the reason it has to be a standard container I guess).
Just for fun and because I had some time over, I created just such a wrapper. It includes indexing and iterators. No bounds-checking.
See https://gist.github.com/pileon/c21cfba496e6c352dd81
Example program using it:
#include <iostream>
#include "pointer_container.h"
int main()
{
int a[20];
std::iota(a, a + 20, 0); // Initialize array
{
std::cout << "From array : ";
for (const auto item : a)
{
std::cout << item << ' ';
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
pointer_container<int> c(a, 20);
{
std::cout << "From container: ";
for (const auto item : c)
{
std::cout << item << ' ';
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
}
Expected output from the program:
From array : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
From container: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Since C++20 there is a way to use c++ containers with managed arrays in c++/cli that avoids copying the data: std::span
In c++20 it's possible to use std::span to wrap a managed c++/cli array. Then it can be used with standard container algorithms.
Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't support c++/cli beyond c++17. Consequently one must first pass the pointer and length to a function in a different source file that is compiled using c++latest while compiling the caller's source file using the earlier c++17/cli. Fortunately the ABIs are compatible. This is easily set up for each file in the properties page of Visual Studio 2019.
Here's some sample code that creates a small managed array<double> then calls a function that wraps the managed data with std::span then sorts with std::sort
// file1.cpp compile with /cli
#include <iostream>
using namespace System;
void sortme(double *p, int len);
int main()
{
array<double>^ v = gcnew array<double> {1.0, 3.0, 2.0, 4.0};
pin_ptr<double> pin=&v[0];
int len=v->Length;
sortme(pin, len);
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
std::cout << v[i] << "\n"; // prints sorted array
}
// file2.cpp compile with c++latest
#include <span>
#include <algorithm>
void sortme(double *p, int len)
{
std::span data_clr(p, len);
std::sort(data_clr.begin(), data_clr.end());
}
Since std::array is just a wrapper you can cast a regular array to a pointer to a std::array. This isn't usable for other containers of course.
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
void test(std::array<int, 10>* pia)
{
std::cout << (*pia)[0] << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
int ix[10]{ 0 };
test((std::array<int, 10> *) ix);
}
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.
I would like to know how in C in can copy the content of a function into memory and the execute it?
I'm trying to do something like this:
typedef void(*FUN)(int *);
char * myNewFunc;
char *allocExecutablePages (int pages)
{
template = (char *) valloc (getpagesize () * pages);
if (mprotect (template, getpagesize (),
PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC|PROT_WRITE) == -1) {
perror ("mprotect");
}
}
void f1 (int *v) {
*v = 10;
}
// allocate enough spcae but how much ??
myNewFunc = allocExecutablePages(...)
/* Copy f1 somewere else
* (how? assume that i know the size of f1 having done a (nm -S foo.o))
*/
((FUN)template)(&val);
printf("%i",val);
Thanks for your answers
You seem to have figured out the part about protection flags. If you know the size of the function, now you can just do memcpy() and pass the address of f1 as the source address.
One big caveat is that, on many platforms, you will not be able to call any other functions from the one you're copying (f1), because relative addresses are hardcoded into the binary code of the function, and moving it into a different location it the memory can make those relative addresses turn bad.
This happens to work because function1 and function2 are exactly the same size in memory.
We need the length of function2 for our memcopy so what should be done is:
int diff = (&main - &function2);
You'll notice you can edit function 2 to your liking and it keeps working just fine!
Btw neat trick. Unfurtunate the g++ compiler does spit out invalid conversion from void* to int... But indeed with gcc it compiles perfectly ;)
Modified sources:
//Hacky solution and simple proof of concept that works for me (and compiles without warning on Mac OS X/GCC 4.2.1):
//fixed the diff address to also work when function2 is variable size
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
#include <sys/mman.h>
int function1(int x){
return x-5;
}
int function2(int x){
//printf("hello world");
int k=32;
int l=40;
return x+5+k+l;
}
int main(){
int diff = (&main - &function2);
printf("pagesize: %d, diff: %d\n",getpagesize(),diff);
int (*fptr)(int);
void *memfun = malloc(4096);
if (mprotect(memfun, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC|PROT_WRITE) == -1) {
perror ("mprotect");
}
memcpy(memfun, (const void*)&function2, diff);
fptr = &function1;
printf("native: %d\n",(*fptr)(6));
fptr = memfun;
printf("memory: %d\n",(*fptr)(6) );
fptr = &function1;
printf("native: %d\n",(*fptr)(6));
free(memfun);
return 0;
}
Output:
Walter-Schrepperss-MacBook-Pro:cppWork wschrep$ gcc memoryFun.c
Walter-Schrepperss-MacBook-Pro:cppWork wschrep$ ./a.out
pagesize: 4096, diff: 35
native: 1
memory: 83
native: 1
Another to note is calling printf will segfault because printf is most likely not found due to relative address going wrong...
Hacky solution and simple proof of concept that works for me (and compiles without warning on Mac OS X/GCC 4.2.1):
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
#include <sys/mman.h>
int function1(int x){
return x-5;
}
int function2(int x){
return x+5;
}
int main(){
int diff = (&function2 - &function1);
printf("pagesize: %d, diff: %d\n",getpagesize(),diff);
int (*fptr)(int);
void *memfun = malloc(4096);
if (mprotect(memfun, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC|PROT_WRITE) == -1) {
perror ("mprotect");
}
memcpy(memfun, (const void*)&function2, diff);
fptr = &function1;
printf("native: %d\n",(*fptr)(6));
fptr = memfun;
printf("memory: %d\n",(*fptr)(6) );
fptr = &function1;
printf("native: %d\n",(*fptr)(6));
free(memfun);
return 0;
}
I have tried this issue many times in C and came to the conclusion that it cannot be accomplished using only the C language. My main thorn was finding the length of the function to copy.
The Standard C language does not provide any methods to obtain the length of a function. However, one can use assembly language and "sections" to find the length. Once the length is found, copying and executing is easy.
The easiest solution is to create or define a linker segment that contains the function. Write an assembly language module to calculate and publicly declare the length of this segment. Use this constant for the size of the function.
There are other methods that involve setting up the linker, such as predefined areas or fixed locations and copying those locations.
In embedded systems land, most of the code that copies executable stuff into RAM is written in assembly.
This might be a hack solution here. Could you make a dummy variable or function directly after the function (to be copied), obtain that dummy variable's/function's address and then take the functions address to do sum sort of arithmetic using addresses to obtain the function size? This might be possible since memory is allocated linearly and orderly (rather than randomly). This would also keep function copying within a ANSI C portable nature rather than delving into system specific assembly code. I find C to be rather flexible, one just needs to think things out.
As a programming exercise, I am writing a mark-and-sweep garbage collector in C. I wish to scan the data segment (globals, etc.) for pointers to allocated memory, but I don't know how to get the range of the addresses of this segment. How could I do this?
If you're working on Windows, then there are Windows API that would help you.
//store the base address the loaded Module
dllImageBase = (char*)hModule; //suppose hModule is the handle to the loaded Module (.exe or .dll)
//get the address of NT Header
IMAGE_NT_HEADERS *pNtHdr = ImageNtHeader(hModule);
//after Nt headers comes the table of section, so get the addess of section table
IMAGE_SECTION_HEADER *pSectionHdr = (IMAGE_SECTION_HEADER *) (pNtHdr + 1);
ImageSectionInfo *pSectionInfo = NULL;
//iterate through the list of all sections, and check the section name in the if conditon. etc
for ( int i = 0 ; i < pNtHdr->FileHeader.NumberOfSections ; i++ )
{
char *name = (char*) pSectionHdr->Name;
if ( memcmp(name, ".data", 5) == 0 )
{
pSectionInfo = new ImageSectionInfo(".data");
pSectionInfo->SectionAddress = dllImageBase + pSectionHdr->VirtualAddress;
**//range of the data segment - something you're looking for**
pSectionInfo->SectionSize = pSectionHdr->Misc.VirtualSize;
break;
}
pSectionHdr++;
}
Define ImageSectionInfo as,
struct ImageSectionInfo
{
char SectionName[IMAGE_SIZEOF_SHORT_NAME];//the macro is defined WinNT.h
char *SectionAddress;
int SectionSize;
ImageSectionInfo(const char* name)
{
strcpy(SectioName, name);
}
};
Here's a complete, minimal WIN32 console program you can run in Visual Studio that demonstrates the use of the Windows API:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <Windows.h>
#include <DbgHelp.h>
#pragma comment( lib, "dbghelp.lib" )
void print_PE_section_info(HANDLE hModule) // hModule is the handle to a loaded Module (.exe or .dll)
{
// get the location of the module's IMAGE_NT_HEADERS structure
IMAGE_NT_HEADERS *pNtHdr = ImageNtHeader(hModule);
// section table immediately follows the IMAGE_NT_HEADERS
IMAGE_SECTION_HEADER *pSectionHdr = (IMAGE_SECTION_HEADER *)(pNtHdr + 1);
const char* imageBase = (const char*)hModule;
char scnName[sizeof(pSectionHdr->Name) + 1];
scnName[sizeof(scnName) - 1] = '\0'; // enforce nul-termination for scn names that are the whole length of pSectionHdr->Name[]
for (int scn = 0; scn < pNtHdr->FileHeader.NumberOfSections; ++scn)
{
// Note: pSectionHdr->Name[] is 8 bytes long. If the scn name is 8 bytes long, ->Name[] will
// not be nul-terminated. For this reason, copy it to a local buffer that's nul-terminated
// to be sure we only print the real scn name, and no extra garbage beyond it.
strncpy(scnName, (const char*)pSectionHdr->Name, sizeof(pSectionHdr->Name));
printf(" Section %3d: %p...%p %-10s (%u bytes)\n",
scn,
imageBase + pSectionHdr->VirtualAddress,
imageBase + pSectionHdr->VirtualAddress + pSectionHdr->Misc.VirtualSize - 1,
scnName,
pSectionHdr->Misc.VirtualSize);
++pSectionHdr;
}
}
// For demo purpopses, create an extra constant data section whose name is exactly 8 bytes long (the max)
#pragma const_seg(".t_const") // begin allocating const data in a new section whose name is 8 bytes long (the max)
const char const_string1[] = "This string is allocated in a special const data segment named \".t_const\".";
#pragma const_seg() // resume allocating const data in the normal .rdata section
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
print_PE_section_info(GetModuleHandle(NULL)); // print section info for "this process's .exe file" (NULL)
}
This page may be helpful if you're interested in additional uses of the DbgHelp library.
You can read the PE image format here, to know it in details. Once you understand the PE format, you'll be able to work with the above code, and can even modify it to meet your need.
PE Format
Peering Inside the PE: A Tour of the Win32 Portable Executable File Format
An In-Depth Look into the Win32 Portable Executable File Format, Part 1
An In-Depth Look into the Win32 Portable Executable File Format, Part 2
Windows API and Structures
IMAGE_SECTION_HEADER Structure
ImageNtHeader Function
IMAGE_NT_HEADERS Structure
I think this would help you to great extent, and the rest you can research yourself :-)
By the way, you can also see this thread, as all of these are somehow related to this:
Scenario: Global variables in DLL which is used by Multi-threaded Application
The bounds for text (program code) and data for linux (and other unixes):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
/* these are in no header file, and on some
systems they have a _ prepended
These symbols have to be typed to keep the compiler happy
Also check out brk() and sbrk() for information
about heap */
extern char etext, edata, end;
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("First address beyond:\n");
printf(" program text segment(etext) %10p\n", &etext);
printf(" initialized data segment(edata) %10p\n", &edata);
printf(" uninitialized data segment (end) %10p\n", &end);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Where those symbols come from: Where are the symbols etext ,edata and end defined?
Since you'll probably have to make your garbage collector the environment in which the program runs, you can get it from the elf file directly.
Load the file that the executable came from and parse the PE headers, for Win32. I've no idea about on other OSes. Remember that if your program consists of multiple files (e.g. DLLs) you may have multiple data segments.
For iOS you can use this solution. It shows how to find the text segment range but you can easily change it to find any segment you like.