I am looking into making a C program which is divided into a Core and Extensions. These extensions should allow the program to be extended by adding new functions. so far I have found c-pluff a plugin framework which claims to do the same. if anybody has any other ideas or reference I can check out please let me know.
You're not mentioning a platform, and this is outside the support of the language itself.
For POSIX/Unix/Linux, look into dlopen() and friends.
In Windows, use LoadLibrary().
Basically, these will allow you to load code from a platform-specific file (.so and .dll, respectively), look up addresses to named symbols/functions in the loaded file, and access/run them.
I tried to limit myself to the low-level stuff, but if you want to have a wrapper for both of the above, look at glib's module API.
The traditional way on windows is with DLLs. But this kind of obselete. If you want users to actually extend your program (as opposed to your developer team releasing official plugins) you will want to embed a scripting language like Python or Lua, because they are easier to code in.
You can extend your core C/C++ program using some script language, for example - Lua
There are several C/C++ - Lua integration tools (toLua, toLua++, etc.)
Do you need to be able to add these extensions to the running program, or at least after the executable file is created? If you can re-link (or even re-compile) the program after having added an extension, perhaps simple callbacks would be enough?
If you're using Windows you could try using COM. It requires a lot of attention to detail, and is kind of painful to use from C, but it would allow you to build extension points with well-defined interfaces and an object-oriented structure.
In this usage case, extensions label themselves with a 'Component Category' defined by your app, hwich allows the Core to find and load them withough havng to know where their DLLs are. The extensions also implement interfaces that are specified using IDL and are consumed by the core.
This is old tech now, but it does work.
Related
I am updating a 16-bit program written as a C program and originally compiled with a Borland C compiler. It will be compiled with Visual Studio as a 64-bit CLI app for Windows 7 and the hope is to minimize the coding changes. The 16-bit file management calls are no longer available. Basically, the functionality that was originally prototyped in dir.h is not available. What is the simplest way of replacing functionality for the following dir.h functions:
_setdisk()
_getdisk()
_getcurdir()
_searchpath()
Hoping to get advice as my experience with C APIs is limited?
You can use the Borland docs as a spec to help you implement your own versions in terms of win32 API calls. Some of them look like they will map easily, for example:
SetCurrentDirectory
GetCurrentDirectory
Others look like they may be more work:
SearchPath + GetEnvironmentVariable
One thing to consider if you have such an old application: depending on its size it may be better to rewrite it rather than to port it. You may find that C++ or C# provide libraries to allow you to achieve the same result with less code in a way that will allow you to more easily make enhancements.
I program in Delphi (D7 and D2006) on Windows XP (migrating in the near future to Windows 7). I need to use a mathematical library for some of the work I am doing and most of the math libraries (I am inclining towards Mathematica at present) I have looked at will produce compiled C code. Such code will provide specific functionality to my main programs.
I have a very basic question - given this development setup - how do I start utilising the compiled c code from Delphi? I really need baby steps to get me started on the process.
I've done quite a bit of this with my FE product OrcaFlex. You have two options to link to your C code from Delphi: static or dynamic. I link statically because it makes distribution and versioning much easier. But it's really quite a trick to get it to work statically and you have to rely on a number of undocumented aspects of Delphi.
I suspect that for your needs dynamic linking is best. Basically you need to compile and link your C code into a DLL. I recommend using the Borland C compiler to do this. You can use the free command line version BCC55 to do this. The advantage of using Borland C is that it makes the same assumptions about the 8087 floating point unit as Delphi does. If you build with MSVC then you will find that MS have elected not to raise floating point exceptions. Borland C does raise floating point exceptions. This is a bit of a corner case but it becomes relevant if you are trying to ship a product that you need to be robust.
You should know that the C code will, by default, use the C calling convention and I'd just stick with that. You bring it into Delphi by declaring the external routine as cdecl calling convention.
The other thing you need to take care on is defining a clear interface between the two modules. You need to make sure that exceptions don't cross the module boundary and that you don't pass any special types (e.g. Delphi strings) across the boundary. So for a string use a PChar (or even better PAnsiChar or PWideChar to be sure that it won't change meaning when you upgrade to Delphi 2009 and later).
I have been very happy with the SDL Library from Lohninger (http://www.lohninger.com/mathpack.html). It is written in Delphi and compiles right into your application, so there are no bundling or calling convention problems or floating point usage differences, as discussed by other responses in this thread.
Take a look at what he includes. If you're lucky, your needs will be met by his library and you'll be able to use it!
If you currently have Mathematica installed, go to the documentation centre and lookup guide/CLanguageInterface otherwise that guide is available on the web and have a good read there.
My understanding is that Mathematica can generate C-programs that link up with the Mathematica engine via MathLink if you need full function, or if you only need lower-level features then it is capable of generating code that can be statically linked with compiled Mathematica libraries. So that standalone code is possible.
See the Code Generator documentation.
If you can convert the C programs in to DLLs, then accessing such external functions from Delphi is relatively simple with external declarations.
function MathematicaRoutine(const x : double) : double; external 'MyInterface.dll';
There are bound to be a great number of complexities in getting this to work if you need to achieve a static bind, for use where Mathematica is not installed, if indeed it is possible. I have never attempted it.
You can mix your project with Delphi and C++ (Builder) code using RAD Studio. Put the automatically created C code into a C++ Builder file (.cpp) and for the rest add Delphi files.
I wanted to know if there is any library in C available for calculating the Font Metrics (Basically i wanted to know the width of a string of Particular Font).
QT has QFontMetrics. Is there any way I can get similar data in C.
I wouldn't say just use FreeType, unless you are on a system that uses X as the graphics display. If you are on Windows, use the Windows API to get font metrics information and on Mac use whatever Cocoa provides.
It might also help if you told us what you are trying to do.
EDIT: Since the output of your library is intended to be consumed by a particular GUI app, you will probably want to use the same GUI library to get the font metrics information as the app is using. Even better would be to have the app provide metrics information to the library, or a callback method that can provide that information. Then the library doesn't even have to know how the font metrics were derived, reducing an unnecessary dependency. This also means that you can use Qt (C++) in your GUI app, but still write your library in C and not have to figure out a way to call C++ from C, which is very difficult, especially if you are trying to make it cross-platform.
C is (just) a programming language. By design C has no embedded functions at all, not even for File I/O.
So you will have to indicate what Graphics/GUI platform you are using.
You can use freetype2 : http://www.freetype.org/freetype2/docs/reference/ft2-base_interface.html#FT_Glyph_Metrics
Check out FreeType: http://freetype.sourceforge.net/freetype2/docs/tutorial/step2.html
Introduction:
I am currently developing a document classifier software in C/C++ and I will be using Naive-Bayesian model for classification. But I wanted the users to use any algorithm that they want(or I want in the future), hence I went to separate the algorithm part in the architecture as a plugin that will be attached to the main app # app start-up. Hence any user can write his own algorithm as a plugin and use it with my app.
Problem Statement:
The way I am intending to develop this is to have each of the algorithms that user wants to use to be made into a DLL file and put into a specific directory. And at the start, my app will search for all the DLLs in that directory and load them.
My Questions:
(1) What if a malicious code is made as a DLL (and that will have same functions mandated by plugin framework) and put into my plugins directory? In that case, my app will think that its a plugin and picks it and calls its functions, so the malicious code can easily bring down my entire app down (In the worst case could make my app as a malicious code launcher!!!).
(2) Is using DLLs the only way available to implement plugin design pattern? (Not only for the fear of malicious plugin, but its a generic question out of curiosity :) )
(3) I think a lot of softwares are written with plugin model for extendability, if so, how do they defend against such attacks?
(4) In general what do you think about my decision to use plugin model for extendability (do you think I should look at any other alternatives?)
Thank you
-MicroKernel :)
Do not worry about malicious plugins. If somebody managed to sneak a malicious DLL into that folder, they probably also have the power to execute stuff directly.
As an alternative to DLLs, you could hook up a scripting language like Python or Lua, and allow scripted plugins. But maybe in this case you need the speed of compiled code?
For embedding Python, see here. The process is not very difficult. You can link statically to the interpreter, so users won't need to install Python on their system. However, any non-builtin modules will need to be shipped with your application.
However, if the language does not matter much to you, embedding Lua is probably easier because it was specifically designed for that task. See this section of its manual.
See 1. They don't.
Using a plugin model sounds like a fine solution, provided that a lack of extensibility really is a problem at this point. It might be easier to hard-code your current model, and add the plugin interface later, if it turns out that there is actually a demand for it. It is easy to add, but hard to remove once people started using it.
Malicious code is not the only problem with DLLs. Even a well-meaning DLL might contain a bug that could crash your whole application or gradually leak memory.
Loading a module in a high-level language somewhat reduces the risk. If you want to learn about embedding Python for example, the documentation is here.
Another approach would be to launch the plugin in a separate process. It does require a bit more effort on your part to implement, but it's much safer. The seperate process approach is used by Google's Chrome web browser, and they have a document describing the architecture.
The basic idea is to provide a library for plugin writers that includes all the logic for communicating with the main app. That way, the plugin author has an API that they use, just as if they were writing a DLL. Wikipedia has a good list of ways for inter-process communication (IPC).
1) If there is a malicious dll in your plugin folder, you are probably already compromised.
2) No, you can load assembly code dynamically from a file, but this would just be reinventing the wheel, just use a DLL.
3) Firefox extensions don't, not even with its javascript plugins. Everything else I know uses native code from dynamic libraries, and is therefore impossible to guarantee safety. Then again Chrome has NaCL which does extensive analysis on the binary code and rejects it if it can't be 100% sure it doesn't violate bounds and what not, although I'm sure they will have more and more vulnerabilities as time passes.
4) Plugins are fine, just restrict them to trusted people. Alternatively, you could use a safe language like LUA, Python, Java, etc, and load a file into that language but restrict it only to a subset of API that wont harm your program or environment.
(1) Can you use OS security facilities to prevent unauthorized access to the folder where the DLL's are searched or loaded from? That should be your first approach.
Otherwise: run a threat analysis - what's the risk, what are known attack vectors, etc.
(2) Not necessarily. It is the most straigtforward if you want compiled plugins - which is mostly a question of performance, access to OS funcitons, etc. As mentioned already, consider scripting languages.
(3) Usually by writing "to prevent malicous code execution, restrict access to the plugin folder".
(4) There's quite some additional cost - even when using a plugin framework you are not yet familiar with. it increases cost of:
the core application (plugin functionality)
the plugins (much higher isolation)
installation
debugging + diagnostics (bugs that occur only with a certain combinaiton of plugins)
administration (users must know of, and manage plugins)
That pays only if
installing/updating the main software is much more complex than updating the plugins
individual components need to be updated individually (e.g. a user may combine different versions of plugins)
other people develop plugins for your main application
(There are other benefits of moving code into DLL's, but they don't pertain to plugins as such)
What if a malicious code is made as a DLL
Generally, if you do not trust dll, you can't load it one way or another.
This would be correct for almost any other language even if it is interpreted.
Java and some languages do very hard job to limit what user can do and this works only because they run in virtual machine.
So no. Dll loaded plug-ins can come from trusted source only.
Is using DLLs the only way available to implement plugin design pattern?
You may also embed some interpreter in your code, for example GIMP allows writing plugins
in python.
But be aware of fact that this would be much slower because if nature of any interpreted language.
We have a product very similar in that it uses modules to extend functionality.
We do two things:
We use BPL files which are DLLs under the covers. This is a specific technology from Borland/Codegear/Embarcadero within C++ Builder. We take advantage of some RTTI type features to publish a simple API similar to the main (argv[]) so any number of paramters can be pushed onto the stack and popped off by the DLL.
We also embed PERL into our application for things that are more business logic in nature.
Our software is an accounting/ERP suite.
Have a look at existing plugin architectures and see if there is anything that you can reuse. http://git.dronelabs.com/ethos/about/ is one link I came across while googling glib + plugin. glib itself might may it easier to develop a plugin architecture. Gstreamer uses glib and has a very nice plugin architecture that may give you some ideas.
I am playing around with some C code, writing a small webserver. The purpose of what I am doing is to write the server using different networking techniques so that I can learn more about them (multithread vs multiprocess vs select vs poll). Much of the code stays the same, but I would like the networking code to be able to be "swapped out" to do some performance testing against the different techniques. I thought about using ifdefs but that seems like it will quickly ugly up the code. Any suggestions?
Dynamic library loading? e.g. dlopen in Linux.
Just craft an API common to the component that requires dynamic loading.
I prefer pushing "conditional compilation" from C/C++ source to makefiles, i.e. having same symbols produced from multiple .c/.cpp files but only link in the objects selected by the build option.
Also take a look at nginx if you haven't already - might give you some ideas about web server implementation.
Compile the networking part into its own lib with a flexible interface. Compile that lib as needed into the various wrappers. You may even be able to find a preexisting lib that meets your requirements.
Put the different implementations of the networking related functions into different .c files sharing a common header and than link with the one you want to use. Starting from this you can make your makefile create x different executables this way for each of the different implementations you have done, so you can just say "make httpd_select" or "make httpd_poll" etc.
Especially for benchmarking to find the best approach it will probably give you more reliable results to do it at the compiler/linker level than via shared libraries or function pointers as that might introduce extra overhead at runtime.