As a proof-of-concept, plus a handy paranoid tool, I'm writing an OpenBSD LKM that will connect to an IRC channel, and report when hooked syscalls are executed.
This is so I can essentially have a 'live' update of filesystem changes, user logons, etc., when I'm offsite but have internet access.
I've gotten as far as connecting the socket, but am stuck at trying to perform the equivalent of a getaddrinfo or even inet_addr call with a hardcoded address.
As these are userland functions, any attempts to use them will result in undefined references - fair enough. The trouble is, after a while of Googling and grep'ing the openbsd source, I cannot find any equivalent kernel functions to do this; the best recommendation has been to reimplement them in the module.
This means I need to also implement things like islower, isxdigit and isspace (and probably others as I progress), which gets a bit much to perform something so simple; is anyone aware of a workaround or alternative for this, or am I stuck c+p code from the net files?
This is definitely better done in userspace. Regardless, OpenBSD no longer supports kernel modules.
Not that you're working on this project anymore. I just wanted to answer so that this could be closed, and so that I could clarify how to use some stdlib functions in the kernel.
In response to this:
This means I need to also implement things like islower, isxdigit and isspace (and probably others as I progress), which gets a bit much to perform something so simple; is anyone aware of a workaround or alternative for this, or am I stuck c+p code from the net files?
Some C stdlib functions are available from libkern (see libkern(9)). Others, including many of the ctype functions like islower(), are available from libsa. To use these, you need something like:
#include <lib/libkern/libkern.h>
#include <lib/libsa/stand.h>
libsa contains a handful of headers (found in /usr/src/sys/lib/libsa/), so include each one you need.
Related
My assignment is to use unix system calls or library utilities in C to get an answer, and I've been searching for a while, All the answers available seem to lead to something with localtime() or time strftime() and I keep getting these warnings that say the functions are unsafe. I've been trying examples and copy pasting code but nothing seems to compile usually with the unsafe error. Help. Extra details, I can't use any libraries out of the very standard ones, things like chrono have gotten my friend rejected work before.
If you're required to turn in the work using the 'traditional' library functions like strftime(), then you'll need to turn off the warnings about these functions being unsafe.
There's usually some way to do this, but it will depend what specific compiler you're using, and you didn't say.
There's nothing particularly 'wrong' with solutions using these functions, it's just that times have moved on since they were originally developed, and many people try to avoid the potential security risks associated with their use.
Have you tried using whats available in the time header? As far as I know, the time.h header should be available to any C compiler.
Some more information to read up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_date_and_time_functions
I am writing code for a target platform with NO C-runtime. No stdlib, no stdio. I need a string formatting function like snprintf but that should be able to run without any dependencies, not even the C library.
At most it can depend on memory alloc functions provided by me.
I checked out Trio but it needs stdio.h header. I can't use this.
Edit
Target platform : PowerPC64 home made OS(not by me). However the library shouldn't rely on OS specific stuff.
Edit2
I have tried out some 3rd-party open source libs, such as Trio(http://daniel.haxx.se/projects/trio/), snprintf and miniformat(https://bitbucket.org/jj1/miniformat/src) but all of them rely on headers like string.h, stdio.h, or(even worse) stdlib.h. I don't want to write my own implementation if one already exists, as that would be time-wasting and bug-prone.
Try using the snprintf implementation from uclibc. This is likely to have the fewest dependencies. A bit of digging shows that snprintf is implemented in terms of vsnprintf which is implemented in terms of vfprintf (oddly enough), it uses a fake "stream" to write to string.
This is a pointer to the code: http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libc/stdio/_vfprintf.c
Also, a quick google search also turned up this:
http://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf/
http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~aholkner/psnprintf/psnprintf.html
http://www.jhweiss.de/software/snprintf.html
Hopefully one is suitable for your purposes. This is likely to not be a complete list.
There is a different list here:
http://trac.eggheads.org/browser/trunk/src/compat/README.snprintf?rev=197
You will probably at least need stdarg.h or low level knowledge of the specific compiler/architecture calling convention in order to be able to process the variadic arguments.
I have been using code based on Kustaa Nyholm's implementation It provides printf() (with user supplied character output stub) and sprintf(), but adding snprintf() would be simple enough. I added vprintf() and vsprintf() for example in my implementation.
No dynamic memory application is required, but it does have a dependency on stdarg.h, but as I said, you are unlikely to be able to get away without that for any variadic function - though you could potentially implement your own.
I am guessing you are in a norming enivronment where you need to explicitly document and verify COTS code.
However, I think in the case of stdarg.h this is worthwhile. You could pull in the source for just this and treat it like handwritten code (review, lint, unit-test, etc.). Any self-written replacement will be a lot of work, probably less stable and absolutely not portable.
That said, the actual snprintf implementation should not be too hard, and you could do this yourself, probably. Especially if you might be able to strip a few features away.
Keep in mind that vararg code has no typechecking and is prone to errors. For library snprintf you may find gcc's warnings helpful.
I have a large code base of quite old C code on an embedded system and unfortunately there are no automated test cases/suites. This makes restructuring and refactoring code a dangerous task.
Manually writing test cases is very time consuming, so I thought that it should be possible to automate at least some part of this process for instance by tracing all the function calls and recording of the input and output values. I could then use these values in the test cases (this would not work for all but at least for some functions). It would probably also be possible to create mock functions based on the gathered data.
Having such test cases would make refactoring a less dangerous activity.
Are there any solutions that already can do this? What would be the easiest way to get this to work if I had to code it myself?
I thought about using ctags to find the function definitions, and wrapping them in a function that records the parameter values. Another possibility would probably be a gcc compiler plugin.
There is a gcc option "-finstrument-functions", which mechanism you can use to define your own callbacks for each funtion's entry/exit.
Google it and you can find many good examples.
[Edit] with this gcc option's call back you can only track the function's entry/exit,not the params. but with some tricks you may also track the params. (walk through the current frame pointer to get the param on the stack).
Here is an article talk about the idea of the implementation:
http://linuxgazette.net/151/melinte.html
Furthermore, depends on your embedded system, on linux you can try something like ltrace to show the params(like the strace way). There are many tools do the function trace work either in userspace or kernelspace on linux, ftrace/ust/ltrace/utrace/strace/systemtap/. Anyway, if you do not add any hard debugging code, it's not possible to display the params in the correct way. If you accept the efforts to add entry/exit debugging infomation, then it's much easier.
Also here is a similar thread talk about this problem.
Tool to trace local function calls in Linux
I need to build a OS, a very small and basic one, with actually least functionality, coded in C.
Probably a CUI OS which does some memory management and has at least a text editor and a calculator, its just going to be a experimentation about how to make a code that has full and direct control over your hardware.
Still I'll be requiring an interface, that will need input/output functions like printf(&args), scanf(&args). Now my basic question is should I use existing headers or go for coding actually from scratch, and why so ?
I'd be more than very thankful to you guys for and help.
First, you can't link against anything from libc ... you're going to have to code everything from scratch.
Now having worked on a micro-kernel myself, I would not use the actual stdio headers that come with libc since they are going to be cluttered with a lot of extra information that will be either irrelevant for your OS, or will create compiler errors due to missing definitions, etc. What I would do though is keep the function signatures for these standard functions the same ... so in the end you would have a file called stdio.h for your OS, but it would be a very stripped down header file with the basic minimum requirements for your needs, and only having the standard I/O functions you need, with the correct standard signatures.
Keep in mind on the back-end, i.e., in your stdio.c file, you're going to have to point these functions to a custom console-driver or some other type of character drive for your display. Either that, or you could just use them as wrappers for some other kernel-level display printing routine. You are also going to want to make sure that even though you may use a #include <stdio.h> directive in your other OS code modules to access these printing functions, you do not link against libc. This can be done using gcc -ffreestanding.
Just retarget newlib.
printf, scanf, etc relies on implementation specific funcions to get a single char or print a single char. You can then make your stdin and stdout the UART 1 for example.
Kernel itself would not require the printf and scanf functions, if you do not want to keep the kernel in kernel mode and work the apps you have planned for. But for basic printf and scanf features, you can write your own printf and scanf functions, which would provide basic support for printing ans taking input. I do not have much experience on this, but you can try make a console buffer, where the keyboard driver puts the read in ASCII characters (after conversion from scan codes), and then make the printf and scanf work on it. I have one basic implementation were i have wrote a gets instead of scanf and kept things simple. To get integer output you can write an atoi function to convert the string to a number.
To port in other libraries, you need to make the components which the libraries depend on. You need to make the decision if you can code in those support in the kernel so that the libraries could be ported in. If it is more difficult then coding some basic input output functions i think won't be bad at this stage,
I have a function which is called explicitly by 4 other functions in my code base. Then in turn each of these functions is called by at least 10 other functions throughout my code. I know that I could, by hand, trace one of these function calls to the main function of my program (which has 30 function calls) but it seems like this would be a better job for the computer. I just want to know which of the functions in main() is calling this buried function.
Does anyone know of any software that could help?
Also, using a debugger is out of the question. That would have been too easy. The software only runs on a hand held device.
doxygen, correctly configured, is able to output an HTML document with navigable caller list and called-by list for every function in your code. You can generate call graphs as well.
Comment it out (or better, comment out its prototype) and try to compile your program. You should see, where it is referenced.
If your platform has an API to capture backtraces, I would just instrument up the function to use those and log them to a file for later analysis. There's no guarantee that this will find all callers (or callers-of-...-of-callers), but if you exercise all of the programs features while logging like this, you should find "most" of them. For relatively simple programs, it is possible to find all callers this way.
Alternatively, many sampling tools can get you this information.
However, I have a suspicion that you may be on a platform that doesn't have a lot of these features, so a static source-analysis tool (like mouviciel suggested) is likely your best option. Assuming that you can make it work for you, this has the added benefit that it should find all callers, not just most of them.
http://cscope.sourceforge.net/ I think this also can be useful.
I second mouviciel's suggestion of using doxygen for getting this info. The downside is that doxygen is working on the source code. You can only see what functions CAN POTENTIALLY call your function, not the ones that are ACTUALLY CALLING your function. If you are using Linux and you can change the source code of the function in question, you can obtain this info using the backtrace() and the backtrace_symbols() functions.