Store extra data in a c function pointer - c

Suppose there is a library function (can not modify) that accept a callback (function pointer) as its argument which will be called at some point in the future. My question: is there a way to store extra data along with the function pointer, so that when the callback is called, the extra data can be retrieved. The program is in c.
For example:
// callback's type, no argument
typedef void (*callback_t)();
// the library function
void regist_callback(callback_t cb);
// store data with the function pointer
callback_t store_data(callback_t cb, int data);
// retrieve data within the callback
int retrieve_data();
void my_callback() {
int a;
a = retrieve_data();
// do something with a ...
}
int my_func(...) {
// some variables that i want to pass to my_callback
int a;
// ... regist_callback may be called multiple times
regist_callback(store_data(my_callback, a));
// ...
}
The problem is because callback_t accept no argument. My idea is to generate a small piece of asm code each time to fill into regist_callback, when it is called, it can find the real callback and its data and store it on the stack (or some unused register), then jump to the real callback, and inside the callback, the data can be found.
pseudocode:
typedef struct {
// some asm code knows the following is the real callback
char trampoline_code[X];
callback_t real_callback;
int data;
} func_ptr_t;
callback_t store_data(callback_t cb, int data) {
// ... malloc a func_ptr_t
func_ptr_t * fpt = malloc(...);
// fill the trampoline_code, different machine and
// different calling conversion are different
// ...
fpt->real_callback = cb;
fpt->data = data;
return (callback_t)fpt;
}
int retrieve_data() {
// ... some asm code to retrive data on stack (or some register)
// and return
}
Is it reasonable? Is there any previous work done for such problem?

Unfortunately you're likely to be prohibited from executing your trampoline in more and more systems as time goes on, as executing data is a pretty common way of exploiting security vulnerabilities.
I'd start by reporting the bug to the author of the library. Everybody should know better than to offer a callback interface with no private data parameter.
Having such a limitation would make me think twice about how whether or not the library is reentrant. I would suggest ensuring you can only have one call outstanding at a time, and store the callback parameter in a global variable.
If you believe that the library is fit for use, then you could extend this by writing n different callback trampolines, each referring to their own global data, and wrap that up in some management API.

Related

How do you avoid using global variables in inherently stateful programs?

I am currently writing a small game in C and feel like I can't get away from global variables.
For example I am storing the player position as a global variable because it's needed in other files. I have set myself some rules to keep the code clean.
Only use a global variable in the file it's defined in, if possible
Never directly change the value of a global from another file (reading from another file using extern is okay)
So for example graphics settings would be stored as file scope variables in graphics.c. If code in other files wants to change the graphics settings they would have to do so through a function in graphics.c like graphics_setFOV(float fov).
Do you think those rules are sufficient for avoiding global variable hell in the long term?
How bad are file scope variables?
Is it okay to read variables from other files using extern?
Typically, this kind of problem is handled by passing around a shared context:
graphics_api.h
#ifndef GRAPHICS_API
#define GRAPHICS_API
typedef void *HANDLE;
HANDLE init_graphics(void);
void destroy_graphics(HANDLE handle);
void use_graphics(HANDLE handle);
#endif
graphics.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "graphics_api.h"
typedef struct {
int width;
int height;
} CONTEXT;
HANDLE init_graphics(void) {
CONTEXT *result = malloc(sizeof(CONTEXT));
if (result) {
result->width = 640;
result->height = 480;
}
return (HANDLE) result;
}
void destroy_graphics(HANDLE handle) {
CONTEXT *context = (CONTEXT *) handle;
if (context) {
free(context);
}
}
void use_graphics(HANDLE handle) {
CONTEXT *context = (CONTEXT *) handle;
if (context) {
printf("width = %5d\n", context->width);
printf("height = %5d\n", context->height);
}
}
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include "graphics_api.h"
int main(void) {
HANDLE handle = init_graphics();
if (handle) {
use_graphics(handle);
destroy_graphics(handle);
}
return 0;
}
Output
width = 640
height = 480
Hiding the details of the context by using a void pointer prevents the user from changing the data contained within the memory to which it points.
How do you avoid using global variables in inherently stateful programs?
By passing arguments...
// state.h
/// state object:
struct state {
int some_value;
};
/// Initializes state
/// #return zero on success
int state_init(struct state *s);
/// Destroys state
/// #return zero on success
int state_fini(struct state *s);
/// Does some operation with state
/// #return zero on success
int state_set_value(struct state *s, int new_value);
/// Retrieves some operation from state
/// #return zero on success
int state_get_value(struct state *s, int *value);
// state.c
#include "state.h"
int state_init(struct state *s) {
s->some_value = -1;
return 0;
}
int state_fini(struct state *s) {
// add free() etc. if needed here
// call fini of other objects here
return 0;
}
int state_set_value(struct state *s, int value) {
if (value < 0) {
return -1; // ERROR - invalid argument
// you may return EINVAL here
}
s->some_value = value;
return 0; // success
}
int state_get_value(struct state *s, int *value) {
if (s->some_value < 0) { // value not set yet
return -1;
}
*value = s->some_value;
return 0;
}
// main.c
#include "state.h"
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
struct state state; // local variable
int err = state_init(&state);
if (err) abort();
int value;
err = state_get_value(&state, &value);
if (err != 0) {
printf("Getting value errored: %d\n", err);
}
err = state_set_value(&state, 50);
if (err) abort();
err = state_get_value(&state, &value);
if (err) abort();
printf("Current value is: %d\n", value);
err = state_fini(&state);
if (err) abort();
}
The only single case where global variables (preferably only a single pointer to some stack variable anyway) have to be used are signal handlers. The standard way would be to only increment a single global variable of type sig_atomic_t inside a signal handler and do nothing else - then execute all signal handling related logic from the normal flow in the rest of the code by checking the value of that variable. (On POSIX system) all other asynchronous communication from the kernel, like timer_create, that take sigevent structure, they can pass arguments to notified function by using members in union sigval.
Do you think those rules are sufficient for avoiding global variable hell in the long term?
Subjectively: no. I believe that a potentially uneducated programmer has too much freedom in creating global variables given the first rule. In complex programs I would use a hard rule: Do not use global variables. If finally after researching all other ways and all other possibilities have been exhausted and you have to use a global variables, make sure global variables leave the smallest possible memory footprint.
In simple short programs I wouldn't care much.
How bad are file scope variables?
This is opinion based - there are good cases where projects use many global variables. I believe that topic is exhausted in are global variables bad and numerous other internet resources.
Is it okay to read variables from other files using extern?
Yes, it's ok.
There are no "hard rules" and each project has it's own rules. I also recommend to read c2 wiki global variables are bad.
The first thing you have to ask yourself is: Just why did the programming world come to loath global variables? Obviously, as you noted, the way to model a global state is essentially a global (set of) variable(s). So what's the problem with that?
The Problem
All parts of the program have access to that state. The whole program becomes tightly coupled. Global variables violate the prime directive in programming, divide and conquer. Once all functions operate on the same data you can as well do away with the functions: They are no longer logical separations of concern but degrade to a notational convenience to avoid large files.
Write access is worse than read access: You'll have a hard time finding out just why on earth the state is unexpected at a certain point; the change can have happened anywhere. It is tempting to take shortcuts: "Ah, we can make the state change right here instead of passing a computation result back up three layers to the caller; that makes the code much smaller."
Even read access can be used to cheat and e.g. change behavior of some deep-down code depending on some global information: "Ah, we can skip rendering, there is no display yet!" A decision which should not be made in the rendering code but at top level. What if top level renders to a file!?
This creates both a debugging and a development/maintenance nightmare. If every piece of the code potentially relies on the presence and semantics of certain variables — and can change them! — it becomes exponentially harder to debug or change the program. The code agglomerating around the global data is like a cast, or perhaps a Boa Constrictor, which starts to immobilize and strangle your program.
Such programming can be avoided with (self-)discipline, but imagine a large project with many teams! It's much better to "physically" prevent access. Not coincidentally all programming languages after C, even if they are otherwise fundamentally different, come with improved modularization.
So what can we do?
The solution is indeed to pass parameters to functions, as KamilCuk said; but each function should only get the information they legitimately need. Of course it is best if the access is read-only and the result is a return value: Pure functions cannot change state at all and thus perfectly separate concerns.
But simply passing a pointer to the global state around does not cut the mustard: That's only a thinly veiled global variable.
Instead, the state should be separated into sub-states. Only top-level functions (which typically do not do much themselves but mostly delegate) have access to the overall state and hand sub-states to the functions they call. Third-tier functions get sub-sub states, etc. The corresponding implementation in C is a nested struct; pointers to the members — const whenever possible — are passed to functions which therefore cannot see, let alone alter, the rest of the global state. Separation of concerns is thus guaranteed.

Extending scope of local variables in C over function calls

I have a library which provides function calls to a user as below:
int* g_ID = NULL;
void processing(int p1, char p2)
{
int ID = newID();
g_ID = &ID;
callback(p1, p2);
return ID;
}
void SendResponse()
{
sendID(*g_ID);
}
The user sets up its application by registering its callback function with the signature void (f*)(int p1, char p2) and should not have knowledge about the ID used internally the library. So the user space code looks something like:
main()
{
RegisterCallback(HandleRequest);
while (inProgress())
sleep(1); /* just sleep here */
}
void (HandleRequest*)(int val1, char val2)
{
/* ... do something user specific ... */
SendResponse();
return;
}
The problem here is, that the library (handling IDs and g_ID is not thread safe) !! User's callback is invoked asynchronously by other library functions, as threads. Several threads can be executed this way in parallel. But I won't give the user visibility of library internal IDs.
I know the code snippets above are not perfect. There're just to demonstrate my intention ... SendResponse() is not yet implemented ;-).
I hope, someone can give some ideas how to "implement" SendResponse() and to keep thread safety.
You could use a threadlocal here to keep the g_ID, rather than making using a global. This will work in the scenario, as I understand it, that there may be multiple concurrent calls to process() from different threads, but that the process() method is as shown - that the SendResponse() call will only occur within the scope (runtime scope, not lexical) of the callback() method. That is true in the code shown. It could be untrue if HandleRequest did something exotic like kick off another thread an then return (but you could certainly ban that by documentation).
The other, more classic, approach is to encapsulate all the state you care about, like g_ID, into a void *, or opaque_state * or whatever, that you pass to the callback, and then methods like SendRespose() take that as an argument. If you don't like void * you can implement the opaque_state * version without exposing any details of that structure using a forward declaration.

How can I check that all my init functions have been called?

I am writing a large C program for embedded use. Every module in this program has an init() function (like a constructor) to set up its static variables.
The problem is that I have to remember to call all of these init functions from main(). I also have to remember to put them back if I have commented them out for some reason.
Is there anything clever I do to make sure that all of these functions are getting called? Something along the lines of putting a macro in each init function that, when you call a check_inited() function later, sends a warning to STDOUT if not all the functions are called.
I could increment a counter, but I'd have to maintain the correct number of init functions somewhere and that is also prone to error.
Thoughts?
The following is the solution I decided on, with input from several people in this thread
My goal is to make sure that all my init functions are actually being called. I want to do
this without maintaining lists or counts of modules across several files. I can't call
them automatically as Nick D suggested because they need to be called in a certain order.
To accomplish this, a macro included in every module uses the gcc constructor attribute to
add the init function name to a global list.
Another macro included in the body of the init function updates the global list to make a
note that the function was actually called.
Finally, a check function is called in main() after all of the inits are done.
Notes:
I chose to copy the strings into an array. This not strictly necessary because the
function names passed will always be static strings in normal usage. If memory was short
you could just store a pointer to the string that was passed in.
My reusable library of utility functions is called "nx_lib". Thus all the 'nxl' designations.
This isn't the most efficient code in the world but it's only called a boot time so that
doesn't matter for me.
There are two lines of code that need to be added to each module. If either is omitted,
the check function will let you know.
you might be able to make the constructor function static, which would avoid the need to give it a name that is unique across the project.
this code is only lightly tested and it's really late so please check carefully before trusting it.
Thank you to:
pierr who introduced me to the constructor attribute.
Nick D for demonstrating the ## preprocessor trick and giving me the framework.
tod frye for a clever linker-based approach that will work with many compilers.
Everyone else for helping out and sharing useful tidbits.
nx_lib_public.h
This is the relevant fragment of my library header file
#define NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE 20
typedef struct _nxl_function_element{
char func[NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE];
BOOL called;
} nxl_function_element;
void nxl_func_run_check_add(char *func_name);
BOOL nxl_func_run_check(void);
void nxl_func_run_check_hit(char *func_name);
#define NXL_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_ADD(function_name) \
void cons_ ## function_name() __attribute__((constructor)); \
void cons_ ## function_name() { nxl_func_run_check_add(#function_name); }
nxl_func_run_check.c
This is the libary code that is called to add function names and check them later.
#define MAX_CHECKED_FUNCTIONS 100
static nxl_function_element m_functions[MAX_CHECKED_FUNCTIONS];
static int m_func_cnt = 0;
// call automatically before main runs to register a function name.
void nxl_func_run_check_add(char *func_name)
{
// fail and complain if no more room.
if (m_func_cnt >= MAX_CHECKED_FUNCTIONS) {
print ("nxl_func_run_check_add failed, out of space\r\n");
return;
}
strncpy (m_functions[m_func_cnt].func, func_name,
NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE);
m_functions[m_func_cnt].func[NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE-1] = 0;
m_functions[m_func_cnt++].called = FALSE;
}
// call from inside the init function
void nxl_func_run_check_hit(char *func_name)
{
int i;
for (i=0; i< m_func_cnt; i++) {
if (! strncmp(m_functions[i].func, func_name,
NX_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_NAME_SIZE)) {
m_functions[i].called = TRUE;
return;
}
}
print("nxl_func_run_check_hit(): error, unregistered function was hit\r\n");
}
// checks that all registered functions were called
BOOL nxl_func_run_check(void) {
int i;
BOOL success=TRUE;
for (i=0; i< m_func_cnt; i++) {
if (m_functions[i].called == FALSE) {
success = FALSE;
xil_printf("nxl_func_run_check error: %s() not called\r\n",
m_functions[i].func);
}
}
return success;
}
solo.c
This is an example of a module that needs initialization
#include "nx_lib_public.h"
NXL_FUNC_RUN_CHECK_ADD(solo_init)
void solo_init(void)
{
nxl_func_run_check_hit((char *) __func__);
/* do module initialization here */
}
You can use gcc's extension __attribute__((constructor)) if gcc is ok for your project.
#include <stdio.h>
void func1() __attribute__((constructor));
void func2() __attribute__((constructor));
void func1()
{
printf("%s\n",__func__);
}
void func2()
{
printf("%s\n",__func__);
}
int main()
{
printf("main\n");
return 0;
}
//the output
func2
func1
main
I don't know how ugly the following looks but I post it anyway :-)
(The basic idea is to register function pointers, like what atexit function does.
Of course atexit implementation is different)
In the main module we can have something like this:
typedef int (*function_t)(void);
static function_t vfunctions[100]; // we can store max 100 function pointers
static int vcnt = 0; // count the registered function pointers
int add2init(function_t f)
{
// todo: error checks
vfunctions[vcnt++] = f;
return 0;
}
...
int main(void) {
...
// iterate vfunctions[] and call the functions
...
}
... and in some other module:
typedef int (*function_t)(void);
extern int add2init(function_t f);
#define M_add2init(function_name) static int int_ ## function_name = add2init(function_name)
int foo(void)
{
printf("foo\n");
return 0;
}
M_add2init(foo); // <--- register foo function
Why not write a post processing script to do the checking for you. Then run that script as part of your build process... Or better yet, make it one of your tests. You are writing tests, right? :)
For example, if each of your modules has a header file, modX.c. And if the signature of your init() function is "void init()"...
Have your script grep through all your .h files, and create a list of module names that need to be init()ed. Then have the script check that init() is indeed called on each module in main().
If your single module represents "class" entity and has instance constructor, you can use following construction:
static inline void init(void) { ... }
static int initialized = 0;
#define INIT if (__predict_false(!initialized)) { init(); initialized = 1; }
struct Foo *
foo_create(void)
{
INIT;
...
}
where "__predict_false" is your compiler's branch prediction hint. When first object is created, module is auto-initialized (for once).
Splint (and probably other Lint variants) can give a warning about functions that are defined but not called.
It's interesting that most compilers will warn you about unused variables, but not unused functions.
Larger running time is not a problem
You can conceivably implement a kind of "state-machine" for each module, wherein the actions of a function depend on the state the module is in. This state can be set to BEFORE_INIT or INITIALIZED.
For example, let's say we have module A with functions foo and bar.
The actual logic of the functions (i.e., what they actually do) would be declared like so:
void foo_logic();
void bar_logic();
Or whatever the signature is.
Then, the actual functions of the module (i.e., the actual function declared foo()) will perform a run-time check of the condition of the module, and decide what to do:
void foo() {
if (module_state == BEFORE_INIT) {
handle_not_initialized_error();
}
foo_logic();
}
This logic is repeated for all functions.
A few things to note:
This will obviously incur a huge penalty performance-wise, so is
probably not a good idea (I posted
anyway because you said runtime is
not a problem).
This is not a real state-machine, since there are only two states which are checked using a basic if, without some kind of smart general logic.
This kind of "design-pattern" works great when you're using separate threads/tasks, and the functions you're calling are actually called using some kind of IPC.
A state machine can be nicely implemented in C++, might be worth reading up on it. The same kind of idea can conceivably be coded in C with arrays of function pointers, but it's almost certainly not worth your time.
you can do something along these lines with a linker section. whenever you define an init function, place a pointer to it in a linker section just for init function pointers. then you can at least find out how many init functions have been compiled.
and if it does not matter what order the init functions are called, and the all have the same prototype, you can just call them all in a loop from main.
the exact details elude my memory, but it works soemthing like this::
in the module file...
//this is the syntax in GCC..(or would be if the underscores came through in this text editor)
initFuncPtr thisInit __attribute((section(.myinits)))__= &moduleInit;
void moduleInit(void)
{
// so init here
}
this places a pointer to the module init function in the .myinits section, but leaves the code in the .code section. so the .myinits section is nothing but pointers. you can think of this as a variable length array that module files can add to.
then you can access the section start and end address from the main. and go from there.
if the init functions all have the same protoytpe, you can just iterate over this section, calling them all.
this, in effect, is creating your own static constructor system in C.
if you are doing a large project and your linker is not at least this fully featured, you may have a problem...
Can I put up an answer to my question?
My idea was to have each function add it's name to a global list of functions, like Nick D's solution.
Then I would run through the symbol table produced by -gstab, and look for any functions named init_* that had not been called.
This is an embedded app so I have the elf image handy in flash memory.
However I don't like this idea because it means I always have to include debugging info in the binary.

Can I replace a Linux kernel function with a module?

Im getting into kernel work for a bit of my summer research. We are looking to make modifications to the TCP, in specific RTT calculations. What I would like to do is replace the resolution of one of the functions in tcp_input.c to a function provided by a dynamically loaded kernel module. I think this would improve the pace at which we can develop and distribute the modification.
The function I'm interested in was declared as static, however I've recompiled the kernel with the function non-static and exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL. This means the function is now accessible to other modules/parts of the kernel. I have verified this by "cat /proc/kallsyms".
Now I'd like to be able to load a module that can rewrite the symbol address from the initial to my dynamically loaded function. Similarly, when the module is to be unloaded, it would restore the original address. Is this a feasible approach? Do you all have suggestions how this might be better implemented?
Thanks!
Same as Overriding functionality with modules in Linux kernel
Edit:
This was my eventual approach.
Given the following function (which I wanted to override, and is not exported):
static void internal_function(void)
{
// do something interesting
return;
}
modify like so:
static void internal_function_original(void)
{
// do something interesting
return;
}
static void (*internal_function)(void) = &internal_function_original;
EXPORT_SYMBOL(internal_function);
This redefines the expected function identifier instead as a function pointer (which can be called in a similar manner) pointing to the original implementation. EXPORT_SYMBOL() makes the address globally accessible, so we can modify it from a module (or other kernel location).
Now you can write a kernel module with the following form:
static void (*original_function_reference)(void);
extern void (*internal_function)(void);
static void new_function_implementation(void)
{
// do something new and interesting
// return
}
int init_module(void)
{
original_function_reference = internal_function;
internal_function = &new_function_implementation;
return 0;
}
void cleanup_module(void)
{
internal_function = original_function_reference;
}
This module replaces the original implementation with a dynamically loaded version. Upon unloading, the original reference (and implementation) is restored. In my specific case, I provided a new estimator for the RTT in TCP. By using a module, I am able to make small tweaks and restart testing, all without having to recompile and reboot the kernel.
I'm not sure that'll work - I believe the symbol resolution for the internal calls to the function you want to replace will have already been done by the time your module loads.
Instead, you could change the code by renaming the existing function, then creating a global function pointer with the original name of the function. Initialise the function pointer to the address of the internal function, so the existing code will work unmodified. Export the symbol of the global function pointer, then your module can just change its value by assignment at module load and unload time.
I once made a proof of concept of a hijack module that inserted it's own function in place of kernel function.
I just so happens that the new kernel tacing architecture uses a very similar system.
I injected my own function in the kernel by overwriting the first couple of bytes of code with a jump pointing to my custom function. As soon as the real function gets called, it jumps instead to my function that after it had done it's work called the original function.
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#define CODESIZE 12
static unsigned char original_code[CODESIZE];
static unsigned char jump_code[CODESIZE] =
"\x48\xb8\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00" /* movq $0, %rax */
"\xff\xe0" /* jump *%rax */
;
/* FILL THIS IN YOURSELF */
int (*real_printk)( char * fmt, ... ) = (int (*)(char *,...) )0xffffffff805e5f6e;
int hijack_start(void);
void hijack_stop(void);
void intercept_init(void);
void intercept_start(void);
void intercept_stop(void);
int fake_printk(char *, ... );
int hijack_start()
{
real_printk(KERN_INFO "I can haz hijack?\n" );
intercept_init();
intercept_start();
return 0;
}
void hijack_stop()
{
intercept_stop();
return;
}
void intercept_init()
{
*(long *)&jump_code[2] = (long)fake_printk;
memcpy( original_code, real_printk, CODESIZE );
return;
}
void intercept_start()
{
memcpy( real_printk, jump_code, CODESIZE );
}
void intercept_stop()
{
memcpy( real_printk, original_code, CODESIZE );
}
int fake_printk( char *fmt, ... )
{
int ret;
intercept_stop();
ret = real_printk(KERN_INFO "Someone called printk\n");
intercept_start();
return ret;
}
module_init( hijack_start );
module_exit( hijack_stop );
I'm warning you, when you're going to experiment with these kind of things, watch out for kernel panics and other disastrous events. I would advise you to do this in a virtualised environment. This is a proof-of-concept code I wrote a while ago, I'm not sure it still works.
It's a really easy principle, but very effective. Of course, a real solution would use locks to make sure nobody would call the function while you're overwriting it.
Have fun!
You can try using ksplice - you don't even need to make it non static.
I think what you want is Kprobe.
Another way that caf has mentioned is to add a hook to the original routine, and register/unregister hook in the module.

Function pointers and callbacks in C

I have started to review callbacks. I found this link on SO:
What is a "callback" in C and how are they implemented? It has a good example of callback which is very similar to what we use at work. However, I have tried to get it to work, but I have many errors.
#include <stdio.h>
/* Is the actual function pointer? */
typedef void (*event_cb_t)(const struct event *evt, void *user_data);
struct event_cb
{
event_cb_t cb;
void *data;
};
int event_cb_register(event_ct_t cb, void *user_data);
static void my_event_cb(const struct event *evt, void *data)
{
/* do some stuff */
}
int main(void)
{
event_cb_register(my_event_cb, &my_custom_data);
struct event_cb *callback;
callback->cb(event, callback->data);
return 0;
}
I know that callbacks use function pointers to store an address of a function. But there are a few things that I find I don't understand:
What is meant by "registering the callback" and "event dispatcher"?
This code compiles and runs under GCC with -Wall.
#include <stdio.h>
struct event_cb;
typedef void (*event_cb_t)(const struct event_cb *evt, void *user_data);
struct event_cb
{
event_cb_t cb;
void *data;
};
static struct event_cb saved = { 0, 0 };
void event_cb_register(event_cb_t cb, void *user_data)
{
saved.cb = cb;
saved.data = user_data;
}
static void my_event_cb(const struct event_cb *evt, void *data)
{
printf("in %s\n", __func__);
printf("data1: %s\n", (const char *)data);
printf("data2: %s\n", (const char *)evt->data);
}
int main(void)
{
char my_custom_data[40] = "Hello!";
event_cb_register(my_event_cb, my_custom_data);
saved.cb(&saved, saved.data);
return 0;
}
You probably need to review whether the call back function gets the whole struct event_cb or not - usually, you'd just pass the data because, as demonstrated, otherwise you have two sources of the same information (and a spare copy of the pointer to the function that you're in). There is a lot of cleanup that can be done on this - but it does work.
A question in the comments asks: Is this a good example of a callback?
Succinctly, no - but in part because there isn't sufficient infrastructure here.
In a sense, you can think of the comparison function passed to the qsort() or bsearch() functions as a callback. It is a pointer to a function that is passed into the generic function that does what the generic function cannot do for itself.
Another example of a callback is a signal handler function. You tell the system to call your function when the event - a signal - occurs. You set up the mechanisms ahead of time so that when the system needs to call a function, it knows which function to call.
The example code is attempting to provide a more elaborate mechanism - a callback with a context. In C++, this would perhaps be a functor.
Some of the code I work with has very fussy requirements about memory management - when used in a particular context. So, for testing, I use malloc() et al, but in production, I have to set the memory allocators to the specialized allocators. Then I provide a function call in the package so that the fussy code can override the default memory allocators with its own surrogate versions - and provided the surrogates work OK, the code will behave as before. Those are a form of callback - again, a form that does not need much (or anything) in the way of user context data.
Windowing systems have event handlers (callbacks) that are registered and that the GUI main event loop will call when events occur. Those usually need user context as well as the event-specific information provided by the GUI system.
What is meant by "registering the callback" and "event dispatcher"?
"registering the callback" is the act of telling the underlying system which precise function to call, and (optionally) with which parameters, and possibly also for which particular class of events that callback should be invoked.
The "event dispatcher" receives events from the O/S (or GUI, etc), and actually invokes the callbacks, by looking in the list of registered callbacks to see which are interested in that event.
Without the compiler output it's hard, but I can see a few problems;
int event_cb_register(event_ct_t cb, void *user_data);
Should be
int event_cb_register(event_cb_t cb, void *user_data);
The my_custom_data variable does not exist when it's used here;
event_cb_register(my_event_cb, &my_custom_data);
This pointer is never initialized;
struct event_cb *callback;
And in;
callback->cb(event, callback->data);
You cannot pass the name of a type ('event') to a function, you must pass an instance of that type.
int event_cb_register(event_ct_t cb, void *user_data);
What is that type event_ct_t? Do you mean event_cb_t?
struct event_cb *callback;
Creates an uninitialized pointer to a structure event_cb. Note mostly this points to garbage.
callback->cb(event, callback->data);
You are trying to call garbage. You need initialization:
struct event_cb callback;
callback.cb = my_event_cb;
callback.data = 42;
or some such stuff.
Registering a callback means that you are specifying which function should be called when the event of interest occurs. Basically you are setting the function pointer when registering a callback.
You created a pointer of the struct you declared, but it does not point to anything:
struct event_cb *callback;
You should just create a type of your struct:
struct event_cb callback;
and then pass its address to the functions.

Resources