I've noticed that many assembly language examples built using straight Win32 calls (no C Runtime dependency) illustrate the use of an explicit call to ExitProcess() to end the program at the end of the entry-point code. I'm not talking about using ExitProcess() to exit at some nested location within the program. There are surprisingly fewer examples where the entry-point code simply exits with a RET instruction. One example that comes to mind is the famous TinyPE, where the program variations exit with a RET instruction, because a RET instruction is a single byte. Using either ExitProcess() or a RET both seem to do the job.
A RET from an executable's entry-point returns the value of EAX back to the Windows loader in KERNEL32, which ultimately propagates the exit code back to NtTerminateProcess(), at least on Windows 7. On Windows XP, I think I remember seeing that ExitProcess() was even called directly at the end of the thread-cleanup chain.
Since there are many respected optimizations in assembly language that are chosen purely on generating smaller code, I wonder why more code floating around prefers the explicit call to ExitProcess() rather than RET. Is this habit or is there another reason?
In its purest sense, wouldn't a RET instruction be preferable to a direct call to ExitProcess()? A direct call to ExitProcess() seems akin to exiting your program by killing it from the task manager as this short-circuits the normal flow of returning back to where the Windows loader called your entry-point and thus skipping various thread cleanup operations?
I can't seem to locate any information specific to this issue, so I was hoping someone could shed some light on the topic.
If your main function is being called from the C runtime library, then exiting will result in a call to ExitProcess() and the process will exit.
If your main function is being called directly by Windows, as may well be the case with assembly code, then exiting will only cause the thread to exit. The process will exit if and only if there are no other threads. That's a problem nowadays, because even if you didn't create any threads, Windows may have created one or more on your behalf.
As far as I know this behaviour is not properly documented, but is described in Raymond Chen's blog post, "If you return from the main thread, does the process exit?".
(I have also tested this myself on both Windows 7 and Windows 10 and confirmed that they behaved as Raymond describes.)
Addendum: in recent versions of Windows 10, the process loader is itself multi-threaded, so there will always be additional threads present when the process first starts.
Related
For a 32-bit windows application is it valid to use stack memory below ESP for temporary swap space without explicitly decrementing ESP?
Consider a function that returns a floating point value in ST(0). If our value is currently in EAX we would, for example,
PUSH EAX
FLD [ESP]
ADD ESP,4 // or POP EAX, etc
// return...
Or without modifying the ESP register, we could just :
MOV [ESP-4], EAX
FLD [ESP-4]
// return...
In both cases the same thing happens except that in the first case we take care to decrement the stack pointer before using the memory, and then to increment it afterwards. In the latter case we do not.
Notwithstanding any real need to persist this value on the stack (reentrancy issues, function calls between PUSHing and reading the value back, etc) is there any fundamental reason why writing to the stack below ESP like this would be invalid?
TL:DR: no, there are some SEH corner cases that can make it unsafe in practice, as well as being documented as unsafe. #Raymond Chen recently wrote a blog post that you should probably read instead of this answer.
His example of a code-fetch page-fault I/O error that can be "fixed" by prompting the user to insert a CD-ROM and retry is also my conclusion for the only practically-recoverable fault if there aren't any other possibly-faulting instructions between store and reload below ESP/RSP.
Or if you ask a debugger to call a function in the program being debugged, it will also use the target process's stack.
This answer has a list of some things you'd think would potentially step on memory below ESP, but actually don't, which might be interesting. It seems to be only SEH and debuggers that can be a problem in practice.
First of all, if you care about efficiency, can't you avoid x87 in your calling convention? movd xmm0, eax is a more efficient way to return a float that was in an integer register. (And you can often avoid moving FP values to integer registers in the first place, using SSE2 integer instructions to pick apart exponent / mantissa for a log(x), or integer add 1 for nextafter(x).) But if you need to support very old hardware, then you need a 32-bit x87 version of your program as well as an efficient 64-bit version.
But there are other use-cases for small amounts of scratch space on the stack where it would be nice to save a couple instructions that offset ESP/RSP.
Trying to collect up the combined wisdom of other answers and discussion in comments under them (and on this answer):
It is explicitly documented as being not safe by Microsoft: (for 64-bit code, I didn't find an equivalent statement for 32-bit code but I'm sure there is one)
Stack Usage (for x64)
All memory beyond the current address of RSP is considered volatile: The OS, or a debugger, may overwrite this memory during a user debug session, or an interrupt handler.
So that's the documentation, but the interrupt reason stated doesn't make sense for the user-space stack, only the kernel stack. The important part is that they document it as not guaranteed safe, not the reasons given.
Hardware interrupts can't use the user stack; that would let user-space crash the kernel with mov esp, 0, or worse take over the kernel by having another thread in the user-space process modify return addresses while an interrupt handler was running. This is why kernels always configure things so interrupt context is pushed onto the kernel stack.
Modern debuggers run in a separate process, and are not "intrusive". Back in 16-bit DOS days, without a multi-tasking protected-memory OS to give each task its own address space, debuggers would use the same stack as the program being debugged, between any two instructions while single-stepping.
#RossRidge points out that a debugger might want to let you call a function in the context of the current thread, e.g. with SetThreadContext. This would run with ESP/RSP just below the current value. This could obviously have side-effects for the process being debugged (intentional on the part of the user running the debugger), but clobbering local variables of the current function below ESP/RSP would be an undesirable and unexpected side-effect. (So compilers can't put them there.)
(In a calling convention with a red-zone below ESP/RSP, a debugger could respect that red-zone by decrementing ESP/RSP before making the function call.)
There are existing program that intentionally break when being debugged at all, and consider this a feature (to defend against efforts to reverse-engineer them).
Related: the x86-64 System V ABI (Linux, OS X, all other non-Windows systems) does define a red-zone for user-space code (64-bit only): 128 bytes below RSP that is guaranteed not to be asynchronously clobbered. Unix signal handlers can run asynchronously between any two user-space instructions, but the kernel respects the red-zone by leaving a 128 byte gap below the old user-space RSP, in case it was in use. With no signal handlers installed, you have an effectively unlimited red-zone even in 32-bit mode (where the ABI does not guarantee a red-zone). Compiler-generated code, or library code, of course can't assume that nothing else in the whole program (or in a library the program called) has installed a signal handler.
So the question becomes: is there anything on Windows that can asynchronously run code using the user-space stack between two arbitrary instructions? (i.e. any equivalent to a Unix signal handler.)
As far as we can tell, SEH (Structured Exception Handling) is the only real obstacle to what you propose for user-space code on current 32 and 64-bit Windows. (But future Windows could include a new feature.)
And I guess debugging if you happen ask your debugger to call a function in the target process/thread as mentioned above.
In this specific case, not touching any other memory other than the stack, or doing anything else that could fault, it's probably safe even from SEH.
SEH (Structured Exception Handling) lets user-space software have hardware exceptions like divide by zero delivered somewhat similarly to C++ exceptions. These are not truly asynchronous: they're for exceptions triggered by instructions you ran, not for events that happened to come after some random instruction.
But unlike normal exceptions, one thing a SEH handler can do is resume from where the exception occurred. (#RossRidge commented: SEH handlers are are initially called in the context of the unwound stack and can choose to ignore the exception and continue executing at the point where the exception occurred.)
So that's a problem even if there's no catch() clause in the current function.
Normally HW exceptions can only be triggered synchronously. e.g. by a div instruction, or by a memory access which could fault with STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION (the Windows equivalent of a Linux SIGSEGV segmentation fault). You control what instructions you use, so you can avoid instructions that might fault.
If you limit your code to only accessing stack memory between the store and reload, and you respect the stack-growth guard page, your program won't fault from accessing [esp-4]. (Unless you reached the max stack size (Stack Overflow), in which case push eax would fault, too, and you can't really recover from this situation because there's no stack space for SEH to use.)
So we can rule out STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION as a problem, because if we get that on accessing stack memory we're hosed anyway.
An SEH handler for STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR could run before any load instruction. Windows can page out any page it wants to, and transparently page it back in if it's needed again (virtual memory paging). But if there's an I/O error, your Windows attempts to let your process handle the failure by delivering a STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR
Again, if that happens to the current stack, we're hosed.
But code-fetch could cause STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR, and you could plausibly recover from that. But not by resuming execution at the place where the exception occurred (unless we can somehow remap that page to another copy in a highly fault-tolerant system??), so we might still be ok here.
An I/O error paging in the code that wants to read what we stored below ESP rules out any chance of reading it. If you weren't planning to do that anyway, you're fine. A generic SEH handler that doesn't know about this specific piece of code wouldn't be trying to do that anyway. I think usually a STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR would at most try to print an error message or maybe log something, not try to carry on whatever computation was happening.
Accessing other memory in between the store and reload to memory below ESP could trigger a STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR for that memory. In library code, you probably can't assume that some other pointer you passed isn't going to be weird and the caller is expecting to handle STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION or PAGE_ERROR for it.
Current compilers don't take advantage of space below ESP/RSP on Windows, even though they do take advantage of the red-zone in x86-64 System V (in leaf functions that need to spill / reload something, exactly like what you're doing for int -> x87.) That's because MS says it isn't safe, and they don't know whether SEH handlers exist that could try to resume after an SEH.
Things that you'd think might be a problem in current Windows, and why they're not:
The guard page stuff below ESP: as long as you don't go too far below the current ESP, you'll be touching the guard page and trigger allocation of more stack space instead of faulting. This is fine as long as the kernel doesn't check user-space ESP and find out that you're touching stack space without having "reserved" it first.
kernel reclaim of pages below ESP/RSP: apparently Windows doesn't currently do this. So using a lot of stack space once ever will keep those pages allocated for the rest of your process lifetime, unless you manually VirtualAlloc(MEM_RESET) them. (The kernel would be allowed to do this, though, because the docs say memory below RSP is volatile. The kernel could effectively zero it asynchronously if it wants to, copy-on-write mapping it to a zero page instead of writing it to the pagefile under memory pressure.)
APC (Asynchronous Procedure Calls): They can only be delivered when the process is in an "alertable state", which means only when inside a call to a function like SleepEx(0,1). calling a function already uses an unknown amount of space below E/RSP, so you already have to assume that every call clobbers everything below the stack pointer. Thus these "async" callbacks are not truly asynchronous with respect to normal execution the way Unix signal handlers are. (fun fact: POSIX async io does use signal handlers to run callbacks).
Console-application callbacks for ctrl-C and other events (SetConsoleCtrlHandler). This looks exactly like registering a Unix signal handler, but in Windows the handler runs in a separate thread with its own stack. (See RbMm's comment)
SetThreadContext: another thread could change our EIP/RIP asynchronously while this thread is suspended, but the whole program has to be written specially for that to make any sense. Unless it's a debugger using it. Correctness is normally not required when some other thread is messing around with your EIP unless the circumstances are very controlled.
And apparently there are no other ways that another process (or something this thread registered) can trigger execution of anything asynchronously with respect to the execution of user-space code on Windows.
If there are no SEH handlers that could try to resume, Windows more or less has a 4096 byte red-zone below ESP (or maybe more if you touch it incrementally?), but RbMm says nobody takes advantage of it in practice. This is unsurprising because MS says not to, and you can't always know if your callers might have done something with SEH.
Obviously anything that would synchronously clobber it (like a call) must also be avoided, again same as when using the red-zone in the x86-64 System V calling convention. (See https://stackoverflow.com/tags/red-zone/info for more about it.)
in general case (x86/x64 platform) - interrupt can be executed at any time, which overwrite memory bellow stack pointer (if it executed on current stack). because this, even temporary save something bellow stack pointer, not valid in kernel mode - interrupt will be use current kernel stack. but in user mode situation another - windows build interrupt table (IDT) suchwise that when interrupt raised - it will be always executed in kernel mode and in kernel stack. as result user mode stack (below stack pointer) will be not affected. and possible temporary use some stack space bellow it pointer, until you not do any functions calls. if exception will be (say by access invalid address) - also space bellow stack pointer will be overwritten - cpu exception of course begin executed in kernel mode and kernel stack, but than kernel execute callback in user space via ntdll.KiDispatchExecption already on current stack space. so in general this is valid in windows user mode (in current implementation), but you need good understand what you doing. however this is very rarely i think used
of course, how correct noted in comments that we can, in windows user mode, write below stack pointer - is just the current implementation behavior. this not documented or guaranteed.
but this is very fundamental - unlikely will be changed: interrupts always will be executed in privileged kernel mode only. and kernel mode will be use only kernel mode stack. the user mode context not trusted at all. what will be if user mode program set incorrect stack pointer ? say by
mov rsp,1 or mov esp,1 ? and just after this instruction interrupt will be raised. what will be if it begin executed on such invalid esp/rsp ? all operation system just crashed. exactly because this interrupt will be executed only on kernel stack. and not overwrite user stack space.
also need note that stack is limited space (even in user mode), access it bellow 1 page (4Kb)already error (need do stack probing page by page, for move guard page down).
and finally really there is no need usually access [ESP-4], EAX - in what problem decrement ESP first ? even if we need access stack space in loop huge count of time - decrement stack pointer need only once - 1 additional instruction (not in loop) nothing change in performance or code size.
so despite formal this is will be correct work in windows user mode, better (and not need) use this
of course formal documentation say:
Stack Usage
All memory beyond the current address of RSP is considered volatile
but this is for common case, including kernel mode too. i wrote about user mode and based on current implementation
possible in future windows and add "direct" apc or some "direct" signals - some code will be executed via callback just after thread enter to kernel (during usual hardware interrupt). after this all below esp will be undefined. but until this not exist. until this code will be work always(in current builds) correct.
In general (not specifically related to any OS); it's not safe to write below ESP if:
It's possible for the code to be interrupted and the interrupt handler will run at the same privilege level. Note: This is typically very unlikely for "user-space" code, but extremely likely for kernel code.
You call any other code (where either the call or the stack used by the called routine can trash the data you stored below ESP)
Something else depends on "normal" stack use. This can include signal handling, (language based) exception unwinding, debuggers, "stack smashing protector"
It's safe to write below ESP if it's not "not safe".
Note that for 64-bit code, writing below RSP is built into the x86-64 ABI ("red zone"); and is made safe by support for it in tool chains/compilers and everything else.
When a thread gets created, Windows reserves a contiguous region of virtual memory of a configurable size (the default is 1 MB) for the thread's stack. Initially, the stack looks like this (the stack grows downwards):
--------------
| committed |
--------------
| guard page |
--------------
| . |
| reserved |
| . |
| . |
| |
--------------
ESP will be pointing somewhere inside the committed page. The guard page is used to support automatic stack growth. The reserved pages region ensures that the requested stack size is available in virtual memory.
Consider the two instructions from the question:
MOV [ESP-4], EAX
FLD [ESP-4]
There are three possibilities:
The first instruction executes successfully. There is nothing that uses the user-mode stack that can execute between the two instructions. So the second instruction will use the correct value (#RbMm stated this in the comments under his answer and I agree).
The first instruction raises an exception and an exception handler does not return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION. As long as the second instruction is immediately after the first one (it is not in the exception handler or placed after it), then the second instruction will not execute. So you're still safe. Execution continues from stack frame where the exception handler exists.
The first instruction raises an exception and an exception handler returns EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION. Execution continues from the same instruction that raised the exception (potentially with a context modified by the handler). In this particular example, the first will be re-executed to write a value below ESP. No problem. If the second instruction raised an exception or there are more than two instructions, then the exception might occur a place after a value is written below ESP. When the exception handler gets called, it may overwrite the value and then return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION. But when execution resumes, the value written is assumed to still be there, but it's not anymore. This is a situation where it's not safe to write below ESP. This applies even if all of the instructions are placed consecutively. Thanks to #RaymondChen for pointing this out.
In general, if the two instructions are not placed back-to-back, if you are writing to locations beyond ESP, there is no guarantee that the written values won't get corrupted or overwritten. One case that I can think of where this might happen is structured exception handling (SEH). If a hardware-defined exception (such as divide by zero) occurs, the kernel exception handler will be invoked (KiUserExceptionDispatcher) in kernel-mode, which will invoke the user-mode side of the handler (RtlDispatchException). When switching from user-mode to kernel-mode and then back to user-mode, whatever value was in ESP will be saved and restored. However, the user-mode handler itself uses the user-mode stack and will iterate over a registered list of exception handlers, each of which uses the user-mode stack. These functions will modify ESP as required. This may lead to losing the values you've written beyond ESP. A similar situation occurs when using software-define exceptions (throw in VC++).
I think you can deal with this by registering your own exception handler before any other exception handlers (so that it is called first). When your handler gets called, you can save your data beyond ESP elsewhere. Later, during unwinding, you get the cleanup opportunity to restore your data to the same location (or any other location) on the stack.
You need also to similarly watch out for asynchronous procedure calls (APCs) and callbacks.
Several answers here mention APCs (Asynchronous Procedure Calls), saying that they can only be delivered when the process is in an "alertable state", and are not truly asynchronous with respect to normal execution the way Unix signal handlers are
Windows 10 version 1809 introduces Special User APCs, which can fire at any moment just like Unix signals. See this article for low level details.
The Special User APC is a mechanism that was added in RS5 (and exposed through NtQueueApcThreadEx), but lately (in an insider build) was exposed through a new syscall - NtQueueApcThreadEx2. If this type of APC is used, the thread is signaled in the middle of the execution to execute the special APC.
Today, only for the testing purposes, I came with the following idea, to create and compile a naive source code in CodeBlocks, using Release target to remove the unnecessary debugging code, a main function with three nop operations only to find faster where the entry point for the main function is.
CodeBlocks sample naive program:
Using IDA disassembler, I have seen something strange, OS actually can add aditional machine code calls in the main function (added implicitly), a call to system function which reside in kernel32.dll what is used for OS thread handling.
IDA program view:
In the machine code only for test reason the three "nop" (90) was replaced by "and esp, 0FFFFFFF0h", program was re-pached again, this is why "no operation" opcodes are not disponible in the view.
Observed behaviour:
It is logic to create a new thread for each process is opened, as we can explore it in the TaskManager, a process run in it's own thread, that is a reason why compiler add this code (the implicit default thread).
My questions:
How compiler know where to "inject" this call code automatically?
Why this call is not made before in the upper function (sub_401B8C) which will route to main function entry point?
To quote the gcc manual:
If no init section is available, when GCC compiles any function called
main (or more accurately, any function designated as a program entry
point by the language front end calling expand_main_function), it
inserts a procedure call to __main as the first executable code after
the function prologue. The __main function is defined in libgcc2.c and
runs the global constructors.
I am adapting a fortran mpi program from sequential to parallel writing for certain types of files. It uses netcdf 4.3.3.1/hdf5 1.8.9 parallel. I use intel compiler version 14.0.3.174.
When all reads/writes are done it is time to close the files. At this point, the simulations does not continue anymore. So all calls are waiting. When I check the call stack from each processor I can see the master root is different compared to the rest of them.
Mpi Master processor call stack:
__sched_yield, FP=7ffc6aa978b0
opal_progress, FP=7ffc6aa978d0
ompi_request_default_wait_all, FP=7ffc6aa97940
ompi_coll_tuned_sendrecv_actual, FP=7ffc6aa979e0
ompi_coll_tuned_barrier_intra_recursivedoubling, FP=7ffc6aa97a40
PMPI_Barrier, FP=7ffc6aa97a60
H5AC_rsp__dist_md_write__flush, FP=7ffc6aa97af0
H5AC_flush, FP=7ffc6aa97b20
H5F_flush, FP=7ffc6aa97b50
H5F_flush_mounts, FP=7ffc6aa97b80
H5Fflush, FP=7ffc6aa97ba0
NC4_close, FP=7ffc6aa97be0
nc_close, FP=7ffc6aa97c00
restclo, FP=7ffc6aa98660
driver, FP=7ffc6aaa5ef0
main, FP=7ffc6aaa5f90
__libc_start_main, FP=7ffc6aaa6050
_start,
Remaining processors call stack:
__sched_yield, FP=7fffe330cdd0
opal_progress, FP=7fffe330cdf0
ompi_request_default_wait, FP=7fffe330ce50
ompi_coll_tuned_bcast_intra_generic, FP=7fffe330cf30
ompi_coll_tuned_bcast_intra_binomial, FP=7fffe330cf90
ompi_coll_tuned_bcast_intra_dec_fixed, FP=7fffe330cfb0
mca_coll_sync_bcast, FP=7fffe330cff0
PMPI_Bcast, FP=7fffe330d030
mca_io_romio_dist_MPI_File_set_size, FP=7fffe330d080
PMPI_File_set_size, FP=7fffe330d0a0
H5FD_mpio_truncate, FP=7fffe330d0c0
H5FD_truncate, FP=7fffe330d0f0
H5F_dest, FP=7fffe330d110
H5F_try_close, FP=7fffe330d340
H5F_close, FP=7fffe330d360
H5I_dec_ref, FP=7fffe330d370
H5I_dec_app_ref, FP=7fffe330d380
H5Fclose, FP=7fffe330d3a0
NC4_close, FP=7fffe330d3e0
nc_close, FP=7fffe330d400
RESTCOM`restclo, FP=7fffe330de60
driver, FP=7fffe331b6f0
main, FP=7fffe331b7f0
__libc_start_main, FP=7fffe331b8b0
_start,
I do realize one call stack contain bcast an the other a barrier. This might cause a deadlock. Yet I do not foresee how to continue from here. If a mpi call is not properly done (e.g only called in 1 proc), I would expect an error message instead of such behaviour.
Update: the source code is around 100k lines.
The files are opened this way:
cmode = ior(NF90_NOCLOBBER,NF90_NETCDF4)
cmode = ior(cmode, NF90_MPIIO)
CALL ipslnc( NF90_CREATE(fname,cmode=cmode,ncid=ncfid, comm=MPI_COMM, info=MPI_INFO))
And closed as:
iret = NF90_CLOSE(ncfid)
It turns out when writting NF90_PUT_ATT, the root processor has a different value compared to the others. Once solved, the program runs as expected.
What is the purpose of this flag (from the OS side)?
Which functions use this flag except isDebuggerPresent?
thanks a lot
It's effectively the same, but reading the PEB doesn't require a trip through kernel mode.
More explicitly, the IsDebuggerPresent API is documented and stable; the PEB structure is not, and could, conceivably, change across versions.
Also, the IsDebuggerPresent API (or flag) only checks for user-mode debuggers; kernel debuggers aren't detected via this function.
Why put it in the PEB? It saves some time, which was more important in early versions of NT. (There are a bunch of user-mode functions that check this flag before doing some runtime validation, and will break to the debugger if set.)
If you change the PEB field to 0, then IsDebuggerPresent will also return 0, although I believe that CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent will not.
As you have found the IsDebuggerPresent flag reads this from the PEB. As far as I know the PEB structure is not an official API but IsDebuggerPresent is so you should stick to that layer.
The uses of this method are quite limited if you are after a copy protection to prevent debugging your app. As you have found it is only a flag in your process space. If somebody debugs your application all he needs to do is to zero out the flag in the PEB table and let your app run.
You can raise the level by using the method CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent where you pass in your own process handle to get an answer. This method goes into the kernel and checks for the existence of a special debug structure which is associated with your process if it is beeing debugged. A user mode process cannot fake this one but you know there are always ways around by simply removing your check ....
I have a Win32 native VC++ application that upon entering WinMain() starts a separate thread, then does some useful job while that other thread is running, then simply exits WinMain() - the other thread is not explicitly stopped.
This blog post says that a .NET application will not terminate in this case since the other thread is still running. Does the same apply to native Win32 applications?
Do I have to stop all threads prior to exiting?
Yes, you have to if you are simply exiting or terminating the main thread via ExitThread or TerminateThread, otherwise your application may not fully shutdown. I recommend reading Raymond Chen's excellent blog posts on this topic:
The old-fashioned theory on how processes exit
Quick overview of how processes exit on Windows XP
How my lack of understanding of how processes exit on Windows XP forced a security patch to be recalled
During process termination, the gates are now electrified
If you return from the main thread, does the process exit?
But please note in particular that if you properly return from the main or WinMain function, the process will exit as described by the ExitProcess API documentation and the last post by Raymond Chen that is being linked above!
The short of it is:
For a native Win32 process to terminate, one of two conditions must be met:
Someone calls ExitProcess or TerminateProcess.
All the threads exit (by returning from their ThreadProc (including the WinMainEntryPoint that is the first thread created by windows)), close (by calling ExitThread), or terminated (someone calls TerminateThread).
(The first condition is actually the same as the 2nd: ExitProcess and TerminateProcess, as part of their cleanup, both call TerminateThread on each thread in the process).
The c-runtime imposes different conditions: For a C/C++ application to terminate, you must either:
return from main (or WinMain).
call exit()
Calling exit() or returning from main() both cause the c-runtime to call ExitProcess(). Which is how c & c++ applications exit without cleaning up their threads. I, personally, think this is a bad thing.
However, non trivial Win32 processes can never terminate because many perfectly, otherwise reasonable, Win32 subsystems create worker threads. winsock, ole, etc. And do not provide any way to cause those threads to spontaneously close.
No, when WinMain returns, the process will be terminated, and this means all threads spawned by the process should be terminated though they might not be closed gracefully.
However, it is possible that a primary thread is terminated while the other threads are running, resulting in the application is still running. If you call ExitThread (not exit or ExitProcess) in WinMain, and there are running threads (eventually created by the primary thread), then, you may observe this behavior. Nonetheless, just return in WinMain will call ExitProcess, and that means all threads are should be terminated.
Correct me if it's wrong.
I think you can first close all your windows(so the user won't see your application), and then set a flag for exit, your thread should check the flag periodicly, and once found set, the thread should return.
after set the flag, your main thread could call ::WaitForSingleObject() or ::WaitForMultipleObjects() for a while (say, three seconds), if the thread(s) not return, just kill them by ::TerminateThread().
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
short answer : yes