I just need a fixed address in any win32 process, where I can store 8 bytes without using any winapi function. I also cannot use assembler prefixes like fs:. and I have no stack pointer.
What I need:
-8 bytes of memory
-constant address and present in any process
-read and write access (via pointer, from the same process)
-should not crash the application (at least not instantly) if modified.
Don't even ask, why I need it.
The only way I'm aware of to do this is to use a DLL with a shared section...
// This goes in a DLL loaded by all apps that want to share the data
#pragma data_seg (".sharedseg")
long long myShared8Bytes = 0; // has to be initialized or this fails
#pragma data_seg()
Then, you add the following to the link command for the dll:
/SECTION:sharedseg,RWS
I am also curious why you want this...
Not that I recommend this, but the PEB probably has some unused or inconsequential fields in it that you could overwrite. I still think this is a terrible idea, though.
constant address and present in any
process
You won't be able to achieve that. Win32 uses paged memory so different processes can access the same memory addresses even though it is different memory.
Related
I'm currently studying memory management of OS by the video lecture. The instructor says,
In fact, you may have, and it is quite often the case that there may
be several parts of the process memory, which are not even accessed at
all. That is, they are neither executed, loaded or stored from memory.
I don't understand the saying since even if in a simple C program, we access whole address space of it. Don't we?
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello, World!");
return 0;
}
Could you elucidate the saying? If possible could you provide an example program wherein "several parts of the process memory, which are not even accessed at all" when it is run.
Imagine you have a large and complicated utility (e.g. a compiler), and the user asks it for help (e.g. they type gcc --help instead of asking it to compile anything). In this case, how much of the utility's code and data is used?
Most programs have various optional parts that aren't used (e.g. maybe something that works with graphics will have some code for 16 bits per pixel and other code for 32 bits per pixel, and will determine which code to use and not use the other code). Most heap allocators are "eager" (e.g. they'll ask the OS for 20 MiB of space and then might only "malloc() 2 MiB of it). Sometimes a program will memory map a huge file but then only access a small part of it.
Even for your trivial "hello world" example code; the virtual address space probably contains a huge (several MiB) shared library to support lots of C standard library functions (e.g. puts(), fprintf(), sprintf(), ...) and your program only uses a small part of that shared library; and your program probably reserves a conservative amount of space for its stack (e.g. maybe 20 KiB of space for its stack) and then probably only uses a few hundred bytes of stack.
In a virtual memory system, the address space of the process is created in secondary store at start up. Little or nothing gets placed in memory. For example, the operating system may use the executable file as the page file for the code and static data. It just sets up an internal structure that says some range of memory is mapped to these blocks in the executable file. The same goes for shared libraries. The other data gets mapped to the page file.
As your program runs it starts page faulting rapidly because nothing is in memory and the operating system has to load it from secondary storage.
If there is something that your program does not reference, it never gets loaded into memory.
If you had global variable declared like
char somedata [1045] ;
and your program never references that variable, it will never get loaded into memory. The same goes for code. If you have pages of code that done get execute (e.g. error handling code) it does not get loaded. If you link to shared libraries, you will likely bece including a lot of functions that you never use. Likewise, they will not get loaded if you do not execute them.
To begin with, not all of the address space is backed by physical memory at all times, especially if your address space covers 248+ bytes, which your computer doesn't have (which is not to say you can't map most of the address space to a single physical page of memory, which would be of very little utility for anything).
And then some portions of the address space may be purposefully permanently inaccessible, like a few pages near virtual address 0 (to catch NULL pointer dereferences).
And as it's been pointed out in the other answers, with on-demand loading of programs, you may have some portions of the address space reserved for your program but if the program doesn't happen to need any of its code or data there, nothing needs to be loader there either.
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 am writing a kernel module that has access to a particular process's memory. I have done an anonymous mapping on some of the user space memory with do_mmap():
#define MAP_FLAGS (MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED | MAP_ANONYMOUS)
prot = PROT_WRITE;
retval = do_mmap(NULL, vaddr, vsize, prot, MAP_FLAGS, 0);
vaddr and vsize are set earlier, and the call succeeds. After I write to that memory block from the kernel module (via copy_to_user), I want to remove the PROT_WRITE permission on it (like I would with mprotect in normal user space). I can't seem to find a function that will allow this.
I attempted unmapping the region and remapping it with the correct protections, but that zeroes out the memory block, erasing all the data I just wrote; setting MAP_UNINITIALIZED might fix that, but, from the man pages:
MAP_UNINITIALIZED (since Linux 2.6.33)
Don't clear anonymous pages. This flag is intended to improve performance on embedded
devices. This flag is only honored if the kernel was configured with the
CONFIG_MMAP_ALLOW_UNINITIALIZED option. Because of the security implications, that option
is normally enabled only on embedded devices (i.e., devices where one has complete
control of the contents of user memory).
so, while that might do what I want, it wouldn't be very portable. Is there a standard way to accomplish what I've suggested?
After some more research, I found a function called get_user_pages() (best documentation I've found is here) that returns a list of pages from userspace at a given address that can be mapped to kernel space with kmap() and written to that way (in my case, using kernel_read()). This can be used as a replacement for copy_to_user() because it allows forcing write permissions on the pages retrieved. The only drawback is that you have to write page by page, instead of all in one go, but it does solve the problem I described in my question.
In userspace there is a system call mprotect that can modify the protection flags on existing mapping. You probably need to follow from the implementation of that system call, or maybe simply call it directly from your code. See mm/protect.c.
I want to move my caching library to a DLL and allow multiple applications to share a single pointer allocated within the DLL using GlobalAlloc(). How could I accomplish this, and would it result in a significant performance decrease?
You could certainly do this and there won't be any performance implication for a single pointer.
Rather than use GlobalAlloc, a legacy API, you should opt for a different shared heap. For example the simplest to use is the COM allocator, CoTaskMemAlloc. Or you can use HeapAlloc passing the process heap obtained by GetProcessHeap.
For example, and neglecting to show error checking:
void *mem = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY, size);
Note that you only need to worry about heap sharing if you expect the memory to be deallocated in a different module from where it was created. If your DLL both creates and destroys the memory then you can use plain old malloc. Because all modules live in the same process address space, memory allocated by any module in that process, can be used by any other module.
Update
I failed on first reading of the question to pick up on the possibility that you may be wanting multiple process to have access to the same memory. If that's what you need then it is only possible with memory mapped files, or perhaps with some form of IPC.
Consider a complex, memory hungry, multi threaded application running within a 32bit address space on windows XP.
Certain operations require n large buffers of fixed size, where only one buffer needs to be accessed at a time.
The application uses a pattern where some address space the size of one buffer is reserved early and is used to contain the currently needed buffer.
This follows the sequence:
(initial run) VirtualAlloc -> VirtualFree -> MapViewOfFileEx
(buffer changes) UnMapViewOfFile -> MapViewOfFileEx
Here the pointer to the buffer location is provided by the call to VirtualAlloc and then that same location is used on each call to MapViewOfFileEx.
The problem is that windows does not (as far as I know) provide any handshake type operation for passing the memory space between the different users.
Therefore there is a small opportunity (at each -> in my above sequence) where the memory is not locked and another thread can jump in and perform an allocation within the buffer.
The next call to MapViewOfFileEx is broken and the system can no longer guarantee that there will be a big enough space in the address space for a buffer.
Obviously refactoring to use smaller buffers reduces the rate of failures to reallocate space.
Some use of HeapLock has had some success but this still has issues - something still manages to steal some memory from within the address space.
(We tried Calling GetProcessHeaps then using HeapLock to lock all of the heaps)
What I'd like to know is there anyway to lock a specific block of address space that is compatible with MapViewOfFileEx?
Edit: I should add that ultimately this code lives in a library that gets called by an application outside of my control
You could brute force it; suspend every thread in the process that isn't the one performing the mapping, Unmap/Remap, unsuspend the suspended threads. It ain't elegant, but it's the only way I can think of off-hand to provide the kind of mutual exclusion you need.
Have you looked at creating your own private heap via HeapCreate? You could set the heap to your desired buffer size. The only remaining problem is then how to get MapViewOfFileto use your private heap instead of the default heap.
I'd assume that MapViewOfFile internally calls GetProcessHeap to get the default heap and then it requests a contiguous block of memory. You can surround the call to MapViewOfFile with a detour, i.e., you rewire the GetProcessHeap call by overwriting the method in memory effectively inserting a jump to your own code which can return your private heap.
Microsoft has published the Detour Library that I'm not directly familiar with however. I know that detouring is surprisingly common. Security software, virus scanners etc all use such frameworks. It's not pretty, but may work:
HANDLE g_hndPrivateHeap;
HANDLE WINAPI GetProcessHeapImpl() {
return g_hndPrivateHeap;
}
struct SDetourGetProcessHeap { // object for exception safety
SDetourGetProcessHeap() {
// put detour in place
}
~SDetourGetProcessHeap() {
// remove detour again
}
};
void MapFile() {
g_hndPrivateHeap = HeapCreate( ... );
{
SDetourGetProcessHeap d;
MapViewOfFile(...);
}
}
These may also help:
How to replace WinAPI functions calls in the MS VC++ project with my own implementation (name and parameters set are the same)?
How can I hook Windows functions in C/C++?
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/68568/huntusenixnt99.pdf
Imagine if I came to you with a piece of code like this:
void *foo;
foo = malloc(n);
if (foo)
free(foo);
foo = malloc(n);
Then I came to you and said, help! foo does not have the same address on the second allocation!
I'd be crazy, right?
It seems to me like you've already demonstrated clear knowledge of why this doesn't work. There's a reason that the documention for any API that takes an explicit address to map into lets you know that the address is just a suggestion, and it can't be guaranteed. This also goes for mmap() on POSIX.
I would suggest you write the program in such a way that a change in address doesn't matter. That is, don't store too many pointers to quantities inside the buffer, or if you do, patch them up after reallocation. Similar to the way you'd treat a buffer that you were going to pass into realloc().
Even the documentation for MapViewOfFileEx() explicitly suggests this:
While it is possible to specify an address that is safe now (not used by the operating system), there is no guarantee that the address will remain safe over time. Therefore, it is better to let the operating system choose the address. In this case, you would not store pointers in the memory mapped file, you would store offsets from the base of the file mapping so that the mapping can be used at any address.
Update from your comments
In that case, I suppose you could:
Not map into contiguous blocks. Perhaps you could map in chunks and write some intermediate function to decide which to read from/write to?
Try porting to 64 bit.
As the earlier post suggests, you can suspend every thread in the process while you change the memory mappings. You can use SuspendThread()/ResumeThread() for that. This has the disadvantage that your code has to know about all the other threads and hold thread handles for them.
An alternative is to use the Windows debug API to suspend all threads. If a process has a debugger attached, then every time the process faults, Windows will suspend all of the process's threads until the debugger handles the fault and resumes the process.
Also see this question which is very similar, but phrased differently:
Replacing memory mappings atomically on Windows