So, my struct is like this:
struct player{
char name[20];
int time;
}s[50];
I don't know how many players i am going to add to the struct, and i also have to use dynamic memory for this. So how can i allocate and reallocate more space when i add a player to my struct?
I am inexperienced programmer, but i have been googling for this for a long time and i also don't perfectly understand structs.
This site doesn't accept my question so let's put some more text to this post
I assume you are programming in C/C++.
Your struct player has static-allocated fields, so, when you use malloc on it, you are asking space for a 20-byte char array a for one integer.
My suggestion is to store in a variable (or #define a symbol) the initial number of structures you can accept. Then, use malloc to allocate a static array that contains these structures.
Also you have to think about a strategy to store new players coming. The simplest one could be have an index variable to store last free position and use it to add over that position.
A short example follows:
#define init_cap 50
struct player {
char name[20];
int time;
};
int main() {
int index;
struct player* players;
players = (struct player*) malloc(init_cap * sizeof(struct player));
for(i = 0; i < init_cap; i++) {
strcpy(players[i].name, "peppe");
players[i].time = i;
}
free(players);
return 0;
}
At this point you should also think about reallocating memory if the number of players you get a runtime exceeds your initial capacity. You can use:
players = (struct player*) realloc(2 * init_cap * sizeof(struct player));
in order to double the initial capacity.
At the end, always remember to free the requested memory.
I'm trying to use this function to copy a buffer from the user to one in kernel.
both buffers were allocated. I'm using while in case not all the bytes were copied on the first try. but for some reason, nothing is copied and the program is stuck in the while loop.
what can be the reasons for that?
void my_copy_from_user(const char* source_buff, char* dest_buff, int size_to_copy){
int not_copied = size_to_copy
int left = size_to_copy;
while( not_copied ){
not_copied = copy_from_user(dest_buff, source_buff, left);
dest_buff += (left - not_copied);
source_buff += (left - not_copied);
left = not_copied;
}
}
It is possible that it is legitimately failing for reasons that you cannot recover from.
Please look at: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/x86/lib/usercopy_32.c#L681
unsigned long _copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned n)
{
if (access_ok(VERIFY_READ, from, n))
n = __copy_from_user(to, from, n);
else
memset(to, 0, n);
return n;
}
This is the underlying implementation for copy_from_user for Linux on x86 processors. It first checks access_ok. If access is not allowed, it will fail and return with n (the number of bytes you requested to copy) immediately. This would cause an infinite loop.
Two points:
I do not think you should invoke copy_from_user in a loop like that. If it fails to copy in kernel mode, there is a reason why. This is a different beast from read() functions when reading from sockets, etc, where you are encouraged to read() in a loop.
Are you sure that you are passing in the correct dest_buff to copy_from_user?
Tips:
Printk all the values and see what's happening. Is left being changed or not? It is likely not.
Given the program below, segfault() will (As the name suggests) segfault the program by accessing 256k below the stack. nofault() however, gradually pushes below the stack all the way to 1m below, but never segfaults.
Additionally, running segfault() after nofault() doesn't result in an error either.
If I put sleep()s in nofault() and use the time to cat /proc/$pid/maps I see the allocated stack space grows between the first and second call, this explains why segfault() doesn't crash afterwards - there's plenty of memory.
But the disassembly shows there's no change to %rsp. This makes sense since that would screw up the call stack.
I presumed that the maximum stack size would be baked into the binary at compile time (In retrospect that would be very hard for a compiler to do) or that it would just periodically check %rsp and add a buffer after that.
How does the kernel know when to increase the stack memory?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void segfault(){
char * x;
int a;
for( x = (char *)&x-1024*256; x<(char *)(&x+1); x++){
a = *x & 0xFF;
printf("%p = 0x%02x\n",x,a);
}
}
void nofault(){
char * x;
int a;
sleep(20);
for( x = (char *)(&x); x>(char *)&x-1024*1024; x--){
a = *x & 0xFF;
printf("%p = 0x%02x\n",x,a);
}
sleep(20);
}
int main(){
nofault();
segfault();
}
The processor raises a page fault when you access an unmapped page. The kernel's page fault handler checks whether the address is reasonably close to the process's %rsp and if so, it allocates some memory and resumes the process. If you are too far below %rsp, the kernel passes the fault along to the process as a signal.
I tried to find the precise definition of what addresses are close enough to %rsp to trigger stack growth, and came up with this from linux/arch/x86/mm.c:
/*
* Accessing the stack below %sp is always a bug.
* The large cushion allows instructions like enter
* and pusha to work. ("enter $65535, $31" pushes
* 32 pointers and then decrements %sp by 65535.)
*/
if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) < regs->sp)) {
bad_area(regs, error_code, address);
return;
}
But experimenting with your program I found that 65536+32*sizeof(unsigned long) isn't the actual cutoff point between segfault and no segfault. It seems to be about twice that value. So I'll just stick with the vague "reasonably close" as my official answer.
I'm writing a program that must take user input to assign values to parts of a structure. I need to create a pointer to the structure that I will pass through as a one and only parameter for a function that will print each part of the structure individually. I also must malloc memory for the structure. As it is now, the program compiles and runs through main and asks the user for inputs. A segmentation fault occurs after the last user input is collected and when I'm assuming the call to the printContents function is run. Any help would be appreciated!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct info
{
char name[100], type;
int size;
long int stamp;
};
void printContents(struct info *iptr);
int main(void)
{
struct info *ptr=malloc(sizeof(struct info));
printf("Enter the type: \n");
scanf("%c", &(*ptr).type);
printf("Enter the filename: \n");
scanf("%s", (*ptr).name);
printf("Enter the access time: \n");
scanf("%d", &(*ptr).stamp);
printf("Enter the size: \n");
scanf("%d", &(*ptr).size);
printf("%c", (*ptr).type);
printContents(ptr);
}
void printContents(struct info *iptr)
{
printf("Filename %s Size %d Type[%s] Accessed # %d \n", (*iptr).name, (*iptr).size, (*iptr).type, (*iptr).stamp);
}
Check the operator precedence. Is this &(*ptr).type the thing you're trying to do? Maybe &((*ptr).type) ?
ptr->member is like access to structure variable right? Also same for scanf() usr &ptr->member to get value. For char input use only ptr->charmember .
First let's do it the hard way. We'll assume that the code is already written, the compiler tells us nothing useful, and we don't have a debugger. First we put in some diagnostic output statements, and we discover that the crash happens in printContents:
printf("testing four\n"); /* we see this, so the program gets this far */
printf("Filename %s Size %d Type[%s] Accessed # %d \n", (*iptr).name, (*iptr).size, (*iptr).type, (*iptr).stamp);
printf("testing five\n"); /* the program crashes before this */
If we still can't see the bug, we narrow the problem down by preparing a minimal compete example. (This is a very valuable skill.) We compile and run the code over and over, commenting things out. When we comment something out and the code still segfaults, we remove it entirely; but if commenting it out makes the problem go away, we put it back in. Eventually we get down to a minimal case:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
char type;
type = 'a';
printf("Type[%s]\n", type);
}
Now it should be obvious: when we printf("%s", x) something, printf expects x to be a string. That is, x should be a pointer to (i.e. the address of) the first element of a character array which ends with a null character. Instead we've given it a character (in this case 'a'), which it interprets as a number (in this case 97), and it tries to go to that address in memory and start reading; we're lucky to get nothing worse than a segfault. The fix is easy: decide whether type should be a char or a char[], if it's char then change the printf statement to "%c", if it's char[] then change its declaration.
Now an easy way. If we're using a good compiler like gcc, it will warn us that we're doing something fishy:
gcc foo.c -o foo
foo.c:35: warning: format ‘%s’ expects type ‘char *’, but argument 4 has type ‘int’
In future, there's a way you can save yourself all this trouble. Instead of writing a lot of code, getting a mysterious bug and backtracking, you can write in small increments. If you had added one term to that printf statement at a time, you would have seen exactly when the bug appeared, and which term was to blame.
Remember: start small and simple, add complexity a little at a time, test at every step, and never add to code that doesn't work.
I am having a hard time in manipulating strings while writing module for linux. My problem is that I have a int Array[10] with different values in it. I need to produce a string to be able send to the buffer in my_read procedure. If my array is {0,1,112,20,4,0,0,0,0,0}
then my output should be:
0:(0)
1:-(1)
2:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(112)
3:--------------------(20)
4:----(4)
5:(0)
6:(0)
7:(0)
8:(0)
9:(0)
when I try to place the above strings in char[] arrays some how weird characters end up there
here is the code
int my_read (char *page, char **start, off_t off, int count, int *eof, void *data)
{
int len;
if (off > 0){
*eof =1;
return 0;
}
/* get process tree */
int task_dep=0; /* depth of a task from INIT*/
get_task_tree(&init_task,task_dep);
char tmp[1024];
char A[ProcPerDepth[0]],B[ProcPerDepth[1]],C[ProcPerDepth[2]],D[ProcPerDepth[3]],E[ProcPerDepth[4]],F[ProcPerDepth[5]],G[ProcPerDepth[6]],H[ProcPerDepth[7]],I[ProcPerDepth[8]],J[ProcPerDepth[9]];
int i=0;
for (i=0;i<1024;i++){ tmp[i]='\0';}
memset(A, '\0', sizeof(A));memset(B, '\0', sizeof(B));memset(C, '\0', sizeof(C));
memset(D, '\0', sizeof(D));memset(E, '\0', sizeof(E));memset(F, '\0', sizeof(F));
memset(G, '\0', sizeof(G));memset(H, '\0', sizeof(H));memset(I, '\0', sizeof(I));memset(J, '\0', sizeof(J));
printk("A:%s\nB:%s\nC:%s\nD:%s\nE:%s\nF:%s\nG:%s\nH:%s\nI:%s\nJ:%s\n",A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J);
memset(A,'-',sizeof(A));
memset(B,'-',sizeof(B));
memset(C,'-',sizeof(C));
memset(D,'-',sizeof(D));
memset(E,'-',sizeof(E));
memset(F,'-',sizeof(F));
memset(G,'-',sizeof(G));
memset(H,'-',sizeof(H));
memset(I,'-',sizeof(I));
memset(J,'-',sizeof(J));
printk("A:%s\nB:%s\nC:%s\nD:%s\nE:%s\nF:%s\nG:%s\nH:%s\nI:%s\nJ:%\n",A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J);
len = sprintf(page,"0:%s(%d)\n1:%s(%d)\n2:%s(%d)\n3:%s(%d)\n4:%s(%d)\n5:%s(%d)\n6:%s(%d)\n7:%s(%d)\n8:%s(%d)\n9:%s(%d)\n",A,ProcPerDepth[0],B,ProcPerDepth[1],C,ProcPerDepth[2],D,ProcPerDepth[3],E,ProcPerDepth[4],F,ProcPerDepth[5],G,ProcPerDepth[6],H,ProcPerDepth[7],I,ProcPerDepth[8],J,ProcPerDepth[9]);
return len;
}
it worked out with this:
char s[500];
memset(s,'-',498);
for (i=len=0;i<10;++i){
len+=sprintf(page+len,"%d:%.*s(%d)\n",i,ProcPerDepth[i],s,ProcPerDepth[i]);
}
I wonder if there is an easy flag to multiply string char in sprintf. thanx –
Here are a some issues:
You have entirely filled the A, B, C ... arrays with characters. Then, you pass them to an I/O routine that is expecting null-terminated strings. Because your strings are not null-terminated, printk() will keep printing whatever is in stack memory after your object until it finds a null by luck.
Multi-threaded kernels like Linux have strict and relatively small constraints regarding stack allocations. All instances in the kernel call chain must fit into a specific size or something will be overwritten. You may not get any detection of this error, just some kind of downstream crash as memory corruption leads to a panic or a wedge. Allocating large and variable arrays on a kernel stack is just not a good idea.
If you are going to write the tmp[] array and properly nul-terminate it, there is no reason to also initialize it. But if you were going to initialize it, you could do so with compiler-generated code by just saying: char tmp[1024] = { 0 }; (A partial initialization of an aggregate requires by C99 initialization of the entire aggregate.) A similar observation applies to the other arrays.
How about getting rid of most of those arrays and most of that code and just doing something along the lines of:
for(i = j = 0; i < n; ++i)
j += sprintf(page + j, "...", ...)