I'm trying to implement a simple FTP client using winsock. I'm having problems trying to download a file. Here's the code I'm using at the moment:
bool FTPHandler::downloadFile(const char * remoteFilePath, const char * filePath) {
if (!isConnected()) {
setErrorMsg("Not connected, imposible to upload file...");
return false;
}
if (usePasiveMode) {
this->pasivePort = makeConectionPasive();
if (this->pasivePort == -1) {
//error msg will be setted by makeConectionPasive()
return false;
}
} else {
setErrorMsg("Unable to upload file not in pasive mode :S");
return false;
}
char * fileName = new char[500];
getFileName(remoteFilePath,fileName);
// Default name and path := current directory and same name as remote.
if (filePath == NULL) {
filePath = fileName;
}
if (!setDirectory(remoteFilePath)) {
return false;
}
char msg[OTHER_BUF_SIZE];
char serverMsg[SERVER_BUF_SIZE];
sprintf(msg,"%s%s\n",RETR_MSG,fileName);
send(sock, msg, strlen(msg), 0);
SOCKET passSocket;
SOCKADDR_IN passServer;
passSocket = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP);
if (passSocket == INVALID_SOCKET) {
WSACleanup();
sprintf(errorMsg,"Error trying to create socket (WSA error code: %d)",WSAGetLastError());
return false;
}
passServer.sin_family = PF_INET;
passServer.sin_port = htons(this->pasivePort);
passServer.sin_addr = *((struct in_addr *)gethostbyname(this->host)->h_addr);
memset(server.sin_zero,0,8);
int errorCode = connect(passSocket, (LPSOCKADDR) &passServer, sizeof(struct sockaddr));
int tries = 0;
while (errorCode == SOCKET_ERROR) {
tries++;
if (tries >= MAX_TRIES) {
closesocket(passSocket);
sprintf(errorMsg,"Error trying to create socket");
WSACleanup();
return false;
}
}
char * buffer = (char *) malloc(CHUNK_SIZE);
ofstream f(filePath);
Sleep(WAIT_TIME);
while (int readBytes = ***recv(passSocket, buffer, CHUNK_SIZE, 0)***>0) {
buffer[readBytes] = '\0';
f.write(buffer,readBytes);
}
f.close();
Sleep(WAIT_TIME);
recv(sock, serverMsg, OTHER_BUF_SIZE, 0);
if (!startWith(serverMsg, FILE_STATUS_OKEY_CODE)) {
sprintf(errorMsg,"Bad response: %s",serverMsg);
return false;
}
return true;
}
That last recv() returns 1 byte several times, and then the method ends and the file that should be around 1Kb is just 23 bytes.
Why isn't recv reading the hole file?
There are all kinds of logic holes and incorrect/missing error handling in this code. You really need to clean up this code in general.
You are passing the wrong sizeof() value to connect(), and not handling an error correctly if connect() fails (your retry loop is useless). You need to use sizeof(sockaddr_in) or sizeof(passServer) instead of sizeof(sockaddr). You are also not initializing passServer correctly.
You are not checking recv() for errors. And in the off-chance that recv() actually read CHUCK_SIZE number of bytes then you have a buffer overflow that will corrupt memory when you write the null byte into the buffer (which you do not need to do) because you are writing it past the boundaries of the buffer.
If connect() fails, or recv() fails with any error other than a server-side initiated disconnect, you are not telling the server to abort the transfer.
Once you tell the server to go into Passive mode, you need to connect to the IP/Port (not just the Port) that the server tells you, before you then send your RETR command.
Don't forget to send the server a TYPE command so it knows what format to send the file bytes in, such as TYPE A for ASCII text and TYPE I for binary data. If you try to transfer a file in the wrong format, you can corrupt the data. FTP's default TYPE is ASCII, not Binary.
And lastly, since you clearly do not seem to know how to program sockets effectively, I suggest you use the FTP portions of the WinInet library instead of WinSock directly, such as the FtpGetFile() function. Let WinInet handle the details of transferring FTP files for you.
Related
There are other similar questions on this site, but they either do not related to winsock2 or they are suitable only for use with ipv4 address spaces. The default compiler for Visual Studio 2019 produces an error when the ntoa function is used, hence an ipv4 and ipv6 solution is required.
I did once produce the code to do this for a Linux system however I am currently at work and do not have access to that. It may or may not be "copy and paste"-able into a windows environment with winsock2. (Edit: I will of course add that code later this evening, but of course it might not be useful.)
The following contains an example, however this is an example for client side code, not server side code.
https://www.winsocketdotnetworkprogramming.com/winsock2programming/winsock2advancedInternet3c.html
Here, the getaddrinfo() function is used to obtain a structure containing matching ipv4 and ipv6 addresses. To obtain this information there is some interaction with DNS, which is not required in this case.
I have some server code which calls accept() (after bind and listen) to accept a client connection. I want to be able to print the client ip address and port to stdout.
The most closely related question on this site is here. However the answer uses ntoa and is only ipv4 compatible.
What I have so far:
So far I have something sketched out like this:
SOCKET acceptSocket = INVALID_SOCKET;
SOCKADDR_IN addr; // both of these are NOT like standard unix sockets
// I don't know how they differ and if they can be used with standard
// unix like function calls (eg: inet_ntop)
int addrlen = sizeof addr;
acceptSocket = accept(listenSocket, (SOCKADDR*)&addr, &addrlen);
if(acceptSocket == INVALID_SOCKET)
{
// some stuff
}
else
{
const std::size_t addrbuflen = INET6_ADDRSRTLEN;
char addrbuf[addrbuflen] = '\0'
inet_ntop(AF_INET, (void*)addr.sin_addr, (PSTR)addrbuf, addrbuflen);
// above line does not compile and mixes unix style function calls
// with winsock2 structures
std::cout << addrbuf << ':' << addr.sin_port << std::endl;
}
getpeername()
int ret = getpeername(acceptSocket, addrbuf, &addrbuflen);
// addrbuf cannot convert from char[65] to sockaddr*
if(ret == ???)
{
// TODO
}
You need to access the SOCKADDR. This is effectively a discriminated union. The first field tells you whether its an IPv4 (==AF_INET) or IPv6 (==AF_INET6) address. Depending on that you cast the addr pointer to be either struct sockaddr_in* or struct sockaddr_in6*, and then read off the IP address from the relevant field.
C++ code snippet in vs2019:
char* CPortListener::get_ip_str(struct sockaddr* sa, char* s, size_t maxlen)
{
switch (sa->sa_family) {
case AF_INET:
inet_ntop(AF_INET, &(((struct sockaddr_in*)sa)->sin_addr),
s, maxlen);
break;
case AF_INET6:
inet_ntop(AF_INET6, &(((struct sockaddr_in6*)sa)->sin6_addr),
s, maxlen);
break;
default:
strncpy(s, "Unknown AF", maxlen);
return NULL;
}
return s;
}
Example:
{
...
char s[INET6_ADDRSTRLEN];
sockaddr_storage ca;
socklen_t al = sizeof(ca);
SOCKET recv = accept(sd, (sockaddr*)&ca, &al);
pObj->m_ip = get_ip_str(((sockaddr*)&ca),s,sizeof(s));
}
Ive incorporated multiple features i want in a microcontroller program (ESP32 Wroom32) and needed some advice on the best way to keep the program running and receive messages while it is running.
Current code:
//includes and declarations
setup()
{
//setup up wifi, server
}
main(){
WiFiClient client = server.available();
byte new_command[40];
if (client) // If client object is created, a connection is setup
{
Serial.println("New wifi Client.");
String currentLine = ""; //Used to print messages
while (client.connected())
{
recv_byte = client.read();
new_command = read_incoming(&recv_byte, client); //Returns received command and check for format. If invalid, returns a 0 array
if (new_command[0] != 0) //Checks if message is not zero, None of valid messages start with zero
{
execute_command(new_command);
//new_command is set to zero
}
}//end of while loop
}//end of if loop
}
The downside of this is that the ESP32 waits till the command is finished executing before it is ready to receive a new message. It is desired that the ESP32 receive commands and store them, and execute it at its own pace. I am planning to change the current code to receive a messages while the code is running as follows:
main()
{
WiFiClient client = server.available();
byte new_command[40];
int command_count = 0;
byte command_array[50][40];
if (command_count != 0)
{
execute_command(command_array[0]);
//Decrement command_count
//Shift all commands in command_array by 1 row above
//Set last executed command to zero
}
}//end of main loop
def message_interrupt(int recv_byte, WiFiClient& running_client)
{
If (running_client.connected())
{
recv_byte = running_client.read();
new_command = read_incoming(&recv_byte, running_client); //Returns received command and check for format. If invalid, returns a 0 array
//add new command to command_array after last command
//increment command_count
}
}
Which interrupt do I use to receive the message and update the command_array ? https://docs.espressif.com/projects/esp-idf/en/latest/esp32/api-guides/wifi.html Doesnt mention any receive/transmit events. I couldnt find any receive/transmit interrupt either or maybe I searched for the wrong term.
how to send the request to the next driver in the stack to further completion?
In my filter driver driver I register a queue for EventWrite with callback EvtDeviceIoWrite as follows:
VOID
EvtDeviceIoWrite(
IN WDFQUEUE Queue,
IN WDFREQUEST Request,
IN size_t Length
)
{
WDFMEMORY memory;
NTSTATUS status;
PUCHAR characters;
UCHAR currentChar;
UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER(Queue);
status = WdfRequestRetrieveInputMemory(Request, &memory);
if (!NT_SUCCESS(status)) {
KdPrint(("RetreiveInputMemo: failed 0x%x\n", status));
return;
}
characters = (PUCHAR)WdfMemoryGetBuffer(memory, NULL);
while (Length != 0) {
Length--;
currentChar = *(characters++);
// Here I would like to edit the buffer
// copy it to output buffer WdfMemoryCopyFromBuffer
}
**// what should be here for send**
}
I just want do something like this, but for the request.
Sorry I am newbiee in kernel developing, and it will be greatful if someone could point me to the right way to achieve this. Any sugestions will be appreciated.
in Windows-driver-samples exist huge count of examples how do Forwarding I/O Requests. take for example first simply code like in filter.c - here this done by FilterForwardRequest or FilterForwardRequestWithCompletionRoutine - so in general called
WdfRequestSend(Request, WdfDeviceGetIoTarget(WdfIoQueueGetDevice(Queue)),WDF_NO_SEND_OPTIONS);
I am writing a C++ (Windows) client console application which reads from an anonymous pipe on STDIN. I would like to be able to use my program as follows:
echo input text here | my_app.exe
and do something in the app with the text that is piped in
OR
my_app.exe
and then use some default text inside of the app instead of the input from the pipe.
I currently have code that successfully reads from the pipe on STDIN given the first situation:
#include <Windows.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#define BUFSIZE 4096
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
char char_buffer[BUFSIZE];
DWORD bytes_read;
HANDLE stdin_handle;
BOOL continue_reading;
unsigned int required_size;
bool read_successful = true;
stdin_handle = GetStdHandle(STD_INPUT_HANDLE);
if (stdin_handle == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) {
std::cout << "Error: invalid handle value!\n\n";
} else {
continue_reading = true;
while (continue_reading) {
continue_reading = ReadFile(stdin_handle, char_buffer, BUFSIZE,
&bytes_read, NULL);
if (continue_reading) {
if (bytes_read != 0) {
// Output what we have read so far
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < bytes_read; i++) {
std::cout << char_buffer[i];
}
} else {
continue_reading = false;
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
I know that my only option with anonymous pipes is to do a blocking read with ReadFile. If I understand correctly, in regard to how I am invoking it, ReadFile will continue to read from the buffer on STDIN until it detects an end of write operation on the other end of the pipe (perhapse reads some sort of "end of write" token??). I would like to know if there is some sort of "beginning write" token that will be in the buffer if something is being piped in which I can check on STDIN BEFORE I call ReadFile. If this were the case I could just skip calling ReadFile and use some default text.
If there is not a way to do this, I can always pass in a command line argument that denotes that I should not check the pipe and just use the default text (or the other way around), but I would much prefer to do it the way that I specified.
Look at PeekNamedPipe(). Despite its name, it works for both named and anonymous pipes.
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
char char_buffer[BUFSIZE];
DWORD bytes_read;
DWORD bytes_avail;
DWORD dw;
HANDLE stdin_handle;
bool is_pipe;
stdin_handle = GetStdHandle(STD_INPUT_HANDLE);
is_pipe = !GetConsoleMode(stdin_handle, &dw);
if (stdin_handle == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) {
std::cout << "Error: invalid handle value!\n\n";
} else {
while (1) {
if (is_pipe) {
if (PeekNamedPipe(stdin_handle, NULL, 0, NULL, &bytes_avail, NULL)) {
if (bytes_avail == 0) {
Sleep(100);
continue;
}
}
}
if (!ReadFile(stdin_handle, char_buffer, min(bytes_avail, BUFSIZE), &bytes_read, NULL)) {
break;
}
if (bytes_read == 0) {
break;
}
// Output what we have read so far
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < bytes_read; i++) {
std::cout << char_buffer[i];
}
}
}
return 0;
}
It looks like what you're really trying to do here is to determine whether you've got console input (where you use default value) vs pipe input (where you use input from the pipe).
Suggest testing that directly instead of trying to check if there's input ready: the catch with trying to sniff whether there's data in the pipe is that if the source app is slow in generating output, your app might make an incorrect assumption just because there isn't input yet available. (It might also be possible that, due to typeahead, there's a user could have typed in characters that area ready to be read from console STDIN before your app gets around to checking if input is available.)
Also, keep in mind that it might be useful to allow your app to be used with file redirection, not just pipes - eg:
myapp.exe < some_input_file
The classic way to do this "interactive mode, vs used with redirected input" test on unix is using isatty(); and luckily there's an equivalent in the Windows CRT - see function _isatty(); or use GetFileType() checking for FILE_TYPE_CHAR on GetStdHandle(STD_INPUT_HANDLE) - or use say GetConsoleMode as Remy does, which will only succeed on a real console handle.
This also works without overlapped I/O while using a second thread, that does the synchronous ReadFile-call. Then the main thread waits an arbitrary amount of time and acts like above...
Hope this helps...
I have a C++ pipe server app and a C# pipe client app communicating via Windows named pipe (duplex, message mode, wait/blocking in separate read thread).
It all works fine (both sending and receiving data via the pipe) until I try and write to the pipe from the client in response to a forms 'textchanged' event. When I do this, the client hangs on the pipe write call (or flush call if autoflush is off). Breaking into the server app reveals it's also waiting on the pipe ReadFile call and not returning.
I tried running the client write on another thread -- same result.
Suspect some sort of deadlock or race condition but can't see where... don't think I'm writing to the pipe simultaneously.
Update1: tried pipes in byte mode instead of message mode - same lockup.
Update2: Strangely, if (and only if) I pump lots of data from the server to the client, it cures the lockup!?
Server code:
DWORD ReadMsg(char* aBuff, int aBuffLen, int& aBytesRead)
{
DWORD byteCount;
if (ReadFile(mPipe, aBuff, aBuffLen, &byteCount, NULL))
{
aBytesRead = (int)byteCount;
aBuff[byteCount] = 0;
return ERROR_SUCCESS;
}
return GetLastError();
}
DWORD SendMsg(const char* aBuff, unsigned int aBuffLen)
{
DWORD byteCount;
if (WriteFile(mPipe, aBuff, aBuffLen, &byteCount, NULL))
{
return ERROR_SUCCESS;
}
mClientConnected = false;
return GetLastError();
}
DWORD CommsThread()
{
while (1)
{
std::string fullPipeName = std::string("\\\\.\\pipe\\") + mPipeName;
mPipe = CreateNamedPipeA(fullPipeName.c_str(),
PIPE_ACCESS_DUPLEX,
PIPE_TYPE_MESSAGE | PIPE_READMODE_MESSAGE | PIPE_WAIT,
PIPE_UNLIMITED_INSTANCES,
KTxBuffSize, // output buffer size
KRxBuffSize, // input buffer size
5000, // client time-out ms
NULL); // no security attribute
if (mPipe == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
return 1;
mClientConnected = ConnectNamedPipe(mPipe, NULL) ? TRUE : (GetLastError() == ERROR_PIPE_CONNECTED);
if (!mClientConnected)
return 1;
char rxBuff[KRxBuffSize+1];
DWORD error=0;
while (mClientConnected)
{
Sleep(1);
int bytesRead = 0;
error = ReadMsg(rxBuff, KRxBuffSize, bytesRead);
if (error == ERROR_SUCCESS)
{
rxBuff[bytesRead] = 0; // terminate string.
if (mMsgCallback && bytesRead>0)
mMsgCallback(rxBuff, bytesRead, mCallbackContext);
}
else
{
mClientConnected = false;
}
}
Close();
Sleep(1000);
}
return 0;
}
client code:
public void Start(string aPipeName)
{
mPipeName = aPipeName;
mPipeStream = new NamedPipeClientStream(".", mPipeName, PipeDirection.InOut, PipeOptions.None);
Console.Write("Attempting to connect to pipe...");
mPipeStream.Connect();
Console.WriteLine("Connected to pipe '{0}' ({1} server instances open)", mPipeName, mPipeStream.NumberOfServerInstances);
mPipeStream.ReadMode = PipeTransmissionMode.Message;
mPipeWriter = new StreamWriter(mPipeStream);
mPipeWriter.AutoFlush = true;
mReadThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ReadThread));
mReadThread.IsBackground = true;
mReadThread.Start();
if (mConnectionEventCallback != null)
{
mConnectionEventCallback(true);
}
}
private void ReadThread()
{
byte[] buffer = new byte[1024 * 400];
while (true)
{
int len = 0;
do
{
len += mPipeStream.Read(buffer, len, buffer.Length);
} while (len>0 && !mPipeStream.IsMessageComplete);
if (len==0)
{
OnPipeBroken();
return;
}
if (mMessageCallback != null)
{
mMessageCallback(buffer, len);
}
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
}
public void Write(string aMsg)
{
try
{
mPipeWriter.Write(aMsg);
mPipeWriter.Flush();
}
catch (Exception)
{
OnPipeBroken();
}
}
If you are using separate threads you will be unable to read from the pipe at the same time you write to it. For example, if you are doing a blocking read from the pipe then a subsequent blocking write (from a different thread) then the write call will wait/block until the read call has completed and in many cases if this is unexpected behavior your program will become deadlocked.
I have not tested overlapped I/O, but it MAY be able to resolve this issue. However, if you are determined to use synchronous calls then the following models below may help you to solve the problem.
Master/Slave
You could implement a master/slave model in which the client or the server is the master and the other end only responds which is generally what you will find the MSDN examples to be.
In some cases you may find this problematic in the event the slave periodically needs to send data to the master. You must either use an external signaling mechanism (outside of the pipe) or have the master periodically query/poll the slave or you can swap the roles where the client is the master and the server is the slave.
Writer/Reader
You could use a writer/reader model where you use two different pipes. However, you must associate those two pipes somehow if you have multiple clients since each pipe will have a different handle. You could do this by having the client send a unique identifier value on connection to each pipe which would then let the server associate the two pipes. This number could be the current system time or even a unique identifier that is global or local.
Threads
If you are determined to use the synchronous API you can use threads with the master/slave model if you do not want to be blocked while waiting for a message on the slave side. You will however want to lock the reader after it reads a message (or encounters the end of a series of message) then write the response (as the slave should) and finally unlock the reader. You can lock and unlock the reader using locking mechanisms that put the thread to sleep as these would be most efficient.
Security Problem With TCP
The loss going with TCP instead of named pipes is also the biggest possible problem. A TCP stream does not contain any security natively. So if security is a concern you will have to implement that and you have the possibility of creating a security hole since you would have to handle authentication yourself. The named pipe can provide security if you properly set the parameters. Also, to note again more clearly: security is no simple matter and generally you will want to use existing facilities that have been designed to provide it.
I think you may be running into problems with named pipes message mode. In this mode, each write to the kernel pipe handle constitutes a message. This doesn't necessarily correspond with what your application regards a Message to be, and a message may be bigger than your read buffer.
This means that your pipe reading code needs two loops, the inner reading until the current [named pipe] message has been completely received, and the outer looping until your [application level] message has been received.
Your C# client code does have a correct inner loop, reading again if IsMessageComplete is false:
do
{
len += mPipeStream.Read(buffer, len, buffer.Length);
} while (len>0 && !mPipeStream.IsMessageComplete);
Your C++ server code doesn't have such a loop - the equivalent at the Win32 API level is testing for the return code ERROR_MORE_DATA.
My guess is that somehow this is leading to the client waiting for the server to read on one pipe instance, whilst the server is waiting for the client to write on another pipe instance.
It seems to me that what you are trying to do will rather not work as expected.
Some time ago I was trying to do something that looked like your code and got similar results, the pipe just hanged
and it was difficult to establish what had gone wrong.
I would rather suggest to use client in very simple way:
CreateFile
Write request
Read answer
Close pipe.
If you want to have two way communication with clients which are also able to receive unrequested data from server you should
rather implement two servers. This was the workaround I used: here you can find sources.