Let's say I want to use a specific Linux / POSIX feature, that is provided conditionally based on feature test macros. For example, the type cpu_set_t, the macro CPU_SET_ZERO, and the function sched_setaffinity.
Ideally I would just like to tell CMake that I need those, and it should figure out what extra feature test macros to set or fail with a nice error message if it can't be provided on the current system. Is that possible?
I am aware that I can lookup in the manpages and manually use add_definitions(-D_GNU_SOURCE), but that can become tedious once multiple functionalities that were introduced and deprecated in different versions of the POSIX standard are combined. In my experience, it can become difficult to maintain portability across different versions of the glibc implementation.
There are the CMake platform checks, but they only seem to help in checking. So I get the error during cmake rather than make, but I still have to figure out the right feature test macros manually.
cmake-compile-features seem to offer only features directly related to the compiler, not the library.
If you are just looking to determine whether a function or variable exists, you can use the CheckSymbolExists module. Likewise, there is CheckStructHasMember for structs (assuming there is a standard member you can check for). So:
include (CheckSymbolExists)
include (CheckStructHasMember)
CHECK_SYMBOL_EXISTS(CPU_SET_ZERO sched.h CPU_SET_ZERO_exists)
CHECK_SYMBOL_EXISTS(sched_setaffinity sched.h sched_setaffinity_exists)
CHECK_STRUCT_HAS_MEMBER(cpu_set_t <member?> sched.h cpu_set_t_exists)
It appears that cpu_set_t is an opaque type, so instead you can use the CheckCXXSourceCompiles module, which is a frontend for the try_compile command. It is a generic way to determine if any particular code compiles. try_compile is used extensively by 'base' CMake to determine features (try a search in the Modules directory!). Essentially, you pass it in a minimal source file, which should fail compilation if your feature is not present, and it reports back to your CMake script the result.
Related
I think a major design flaw in Linux is the shared object hell when it comes to distributing programs in binary instead of source code form.
Here is my specific problem: I want to publish a Linux program in ELF binary form that should run on as many distributions as possible so my mandatory dependencies are as low as it gets: The only libraries required under any circumstances are libpthread, libX11, librt and libm (and glibc of course). I'm linking dynamically against these libraries when I build my program using gcc.
Optionally, however, my program should also support ALSA (sound interface), the Xcursor, Xfixes, and Xxf86vm extensions as well as GTK. But these should only be used if they are available on the user's system, otherwise my program should still run but with limited functionality. For example, if GTK isn't there, my program will fall back to terminal mode. Because my program should still be able to run without ALSA, Xcursor, Xfixes, etc. I cannot link dynamically against these libraries because then the program won't start at all if one of the libraries isn't there.
So I need to manually check if the libraries are present and then open them one by one using dlopen() and import the necessary function symbols using dlsym(). This, however, leads to all kinds of problems:
1) Library naming conventions:
Shared objects often aren't simply called "libXcursor.so" but have some kind of version extension like "libXcursor.so.1" or even really funny things like "libXcursor.so.0.2000". These extensions seem to differ from system to system. So which one should I choose when calling dlopen()? Using a hardcoded name here seems like a very bad idea because the names differ from system to system. So the only workaround that comes to my mind is to scan the whole library path and look for filenames starting with a "libXcursor.so" prefix and then do some custom version matching. But how do I know that they are really compatible?
2) Library search paths: Where should I look for the *.so files after all? This is also different from system to system. There are some default paths like /usr/lib and /lib but *.so files could also be in lots of other paths. So I'd have to open /etc/ld.so.conf and parse this to find out all library search paths. That's not a trivial thing to do because /etc/ld.so.conf files can also use some kind of include directive which means that I have to parse even more .conf files, do some checks against possible infinite loops caused by circular include directives etc. Is there really no easier way to find out the search paths for *.so?
So, my actual question is this: Isn't there a more convenient, less hackish way of achieving what I want to do? Is it really so complicated to create a Linux program that has some optional dependencies like ALSA, GTK, libXcursor... but should also work without it! Is there some kind of standard for doing what I want to do? Or am I doomed to do it the hackish way?
Thanks for your comments/solutions!
I think a major design flaw in Linux is the shared object hell when it comes to distributing programs in binary instead of source code form.
This isn't a design flaw as far as creators of the system are concerned; it's an advantage -- it encourages you to distribute programs in source form. Oh, you wanted to sell your software? Sorry, that's not the use case Linux is optimized for.
Library naming conventions: Shared objects often aren't simply called "libXcursor.so" but have some kind of version extension like "libXcursor.so.1" or even really funny things like "libXcursor.so.0.2000".
Yes, this is called external library versioning. Read about it here. As should be clear from that description, if you compiled your binaries using headers on a system that would normally give you libXcursor.so.1 as a runtime reference, then the only shared library you are compatible with is libXcursor.so.1, and trying to dlopen libXcursor.so.0.2000 will lead to unpredictable crashes.
Any system that provides libXcursor.so but not libXcursor.so.1 is either a broken installation, or is also incompatible with your binaries.
Library search paths: Where should I look for the *.so files after all?
You shouldn't be trying to dlopen any of these libraries using their full path. Just call dlopen("libXcursor.so.1", RTLD_GLOBAL);, and the runtime loader will search for the library in system-appropriate locations.
In my open-source project Artha I use libnotify for showing passive desktop notifications to the user.
Instead of statically linking libnotify, a lookup at runtime is made for the shared object (.so) file via dlload, if available on the target machine, Artha exposes the notification feature in it's GUI. On app. start, a call to dlload with filename param as libnotify.so.1 is made and if it returns a non-null pointer, then the feature is exposed.
A recurring problem with this model is that every time the version number of the library is bumped, Artha's code needs to be updated, currently libnotify.so.4 is the latest to entail such an occurance.
Is there a linux system call (irrespective of the distro the app. is running on), which can tell me if a particular library's shared object is available at runtime? I know that there exists the bruteforce option of enumerating the library by going from 1 to say 10, I find the solution ugly and inelegant.
Also, if this can be addressed via autoconf, then that solution is welcome too I.e. at build time, based on the target machine, the configure.h generated should've the right .so name that can be passed to dlload.
P.S.: I think good distros follow the style of creating links to libnotify.so.x so that a programmer can just do dlload("libnotify.so", RTLD_LAZY) and the right version numbered .so is loaded; unfortunately not all distros follow this, including Ubuntu.
The answer is: you don't.
dlopen() is not designed to deal with things like that, and trying to load whichever soversion you find on the system just because it happens to have the symbols you need is not a good way to do it.
Different sonames have different ABIs, and different ABIs means that you may be calling the same exact symbol name that is expecting a different set (or different size) of parameters, which will cause crashes or misbehaviour that are extremely difficult do debug.
You should have a read on how shared object versions work and what an ABI is.
The libfoo.so link is there for the link editor (ld) and is usually installed with the -devel packages for that reason; it might also very well not be a link but rather a text file with a linker script, often times on purpose to avoid exactly what you're trying to do.
When the same piece of c++ code is compiled with the same version of visual c++ compiler but at different times and possibly in different computers, does the code reordering performed by the compiler remains same or it may differ. i.e. does the logic behind code optimization by code reordering depend only on the code or it depends on various other parameters?
The context of the question is that I want to create a tool which finds out whether the two dlls are same or different based on their functionalities.
Correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that since you want to compare dlls based on their functionality, you don't care about implementation details. Based on this assumption, it is clear that your tool could only look at the function signatures and classes, structs, etc definitions exposed by the dlls which would always be the same regardless of compiler for the same dll.
I have a portal in my university LAN where people can upload code to programming puzzles in C/C++. I would like to make the portal secure so that people cannot make system calls via their submitted code. There might be several workarounds but I'd like to know if I could do it simply by setting some clever gcc flags. libc by default seems to include <unistd.h>, which appears to be the basic file where system calls are declared. Is there a way I could tell gcc/g++ to 'ignore' this file at compile time so that none of the functions declared in unistd.h can be accessed?
Some particular reason why chroot("/var/jail/empty"); setuid(65534); isn't good enough (assuming 65534 has sensible limits)?
Restricting access to the header file won't prevent you from accessing libc functions: they're still available if you link against libc - you just won't have the prototypes (and macros) to hand; but you can replicate them yourself.
And not linking against libc won't help either: system calls could be made directly via inline assembler (or even tricks involving jumping into data).
I don't think this is a good approach in general. Running the uploaded code in a completely self-contained virtual sandbox (via QEMU or something like that, perhaps) would probably be a better way to go.
-D can overwrite individual function names. For example:
gcc file.c -Dchown -Dchdir
Or you can set the include guard yourself:
gcc file.c -D_UNISTD_H
However their effects can be easily reverted with #undefs by intelligent submitters :)
I'm still new to the Ada programming world so forgive me if this question is obvious.
I am looking at developing an application (in Ada, using the features in the 2005 revision) that reads from the serial port and basically performs manipulation of the strings and numbers it receives from an external device.
Now my intention was to likely use Florist and the POSIX terminal interfaces to do all the serial work on Linux first....I'll get to Windows/MacOS/etc... some other time but I want to leave that option open.
I would like to follow Ada best practices in whatever I do with this. So instead of a hack like conditional compilation under C (which I know Ada does not have anyway) I would like to find out how you are suppose to specify a change in package files from the command line (gnatmake for example)?
The only thing I can think of right now is I could name all platform packages exactly the same (i.e. package name Serial.Connector with the same filenames) and place them in different folders in the project archive and then upon compilation specify the directories/Libraries to look in for the files with -I argument and change directory names for different platforms.
This is way I was shown for GCC using C/C++...is this still the best way with Ada using GNAT?.
Thanks,
-Josh
That's a perfectly acceptable way of handling this kind of situation. If at all possible you should have a common package specification (or specifications if more than one is appropriate), with all the platform-specific stuff strictly confined to the corresponding package body variations.
(If you did want to go down the preprocessor path, there's a GNAT preprocessor called gnatprep that can be used, but I don't like conditional compilation either, so I'd recommend staying with the separate subdirectories approach.)
You could use the GNAT Project file package Naming: an extract from a real example, where I wanted to choose between two versions of a package in the same directory, one with debug additions, is
...
type Debug_Code is ("no", "yes");
Debug : Debug_Code := External ("DEBUG", "no");
...
package Naming is
case Debug is
when "yes" =>
for Spec ("BC.Support.Managed_Storage")
use "bc-support-managed_storage.ads-debug";
for Body ("BC.Support.Managed_Storage")
use "bc-support-managed_storage.adb-debug";
when "no" =>
null;
end case;
end Naming;
To select the special naming, either set the environment variable DEBUG to yes or build with gnatmake -XDEBUG=yes.
Yes, the generally accepted way to handle this in Ada is to do it with different files, selected by your build system. Gnu make is about as multiplatform as it gets, and can allow you to build different files (with different names and/or directories and everything) under different configurations.
As a matter of fact, I find this a superior way (over #ifdefs) to do it in C as well.