Recently, I've purchased a game that uses lua for modding support. Unfortunately, lua has been statically linked and there are no dll's at all. It appears to be running lua 5.2 and I don't think any of the lua functions have been modified. I don't have access to the source but debugging info was included with the executable. I'm attempting to use an external library (luasockets) which seems to come with it's own version of lua (lua5.1.dll). Loading the library causes the game to immediately crash without a useful stacktrace. any way to make this work short of rewriting all the lua functions in the exe?
Related
Luarocks wont work on fibaro, so im removing this
As Egor suggested, Fibaro sandboxes their Lua environment. A full list of what is removed is listed at https://manuals.fibaro.com/knowledge-base-browse/blocked-lua-commands/, but it includes require, dofile, load, loadfile, loadstring, several functions in the os library, and the entire io and package library.
That effectively requires all of your code to be contained in a single file, with no access to modules, packages, or libraries other than the remaining parts of the standard library, which means you simply can't do what you're trying to do here.
I'm using lua inside another (Windows) application that provides a lua scripting interface. Is there a way for me to know which lua executable is being used? I know the version, but I would like to know where is the lua.exe that is running.
Lua is an embedded scripting language; that is the design of the thing. Lua is designed and intended to be incorporated into other programs. Lua.exe is essentially just a tiny shim over the Lua runtime, Lua being incorporated into a small console application. This is useful for using Lua as a console scripting language, but Lua.exe is in no way required to use Lua.
Lua scripts are not expected to know or care about the environment in which they run, except for in exactly the ways that this environment provides for them to detect. Lua as a language therefore has no mechanism to detect anything about the nature of the environment. If an embedded Lua environment wants you to be able to query such things, it will provide a mechanism for you to do so.
I'm working with ESP8266 and I don't want to use Lua for the whole project, I just want to run a few snippets of Lua code, received from wifi/sd card. I'd need to start a Lua environment and run the scripts, which would then eventually call some native functions for low level tasks. In other words, I just want to use Lua as simple scripting language (as it's intended to be) to implement some dynamic behavior. Is it possible? Is there any build of lualib for arduino?
Thanks in advance!
You can simply embed Lua in a extlibs/ folder for example and link to it when compiling your program.
There is existing Lua binaries but building it yourself is easy and better (as it's multiplatform).
OK, I know both answers told me I can just embed the code into my project, however, I found out I need to make some small changes. I made an example working project available here and the following list of changes had to be made:
The flags LUA_32BITS and LUA_USE_LONGJMP (C exception handling) were enabled
The following libraries were excluded: io, os, package, coroutine
The following functions were removed from C API: luaL_fileresult, luaL_execresult, luaL_loadfile, luaL_loadfilex, luaL_dofile, luaB_loadfile, luaB_dofile
Lua output messages are redirected to the Serial interface, check tinylua.h, tinylua.cpp and lauxlib.h to change this behavior
Hope this helps!
The ESP8266 has up to 4MB of program storage. Theoretically you can get up to 16MB as the datasheet specifies.
As I remember, compiling an amalgamated version of Lua (all sources in one file), occupies less than 100kb.
So, you can compile the Lua library and use it as needed on esp8266, even using Arduino IDE.
But you will get NAKED Lua if you do so... No nifty libraries to control Wifi, serial, SD, ports... You would have to provide that in C, or use NodeMCU code as you need.
You can try LuaJIT and access C code directly from Lua, cutting out the need for writing libraries. I have no idea of how you would compile it to Esp8266, or if anyone have tried this before, but you can do it "for science" and tell us how it turned out.
How can I build and compile my own Lua files on Windows? And make them executable.
I am reading Beginning Lua programming, and I have Windows 7 and MacOS Lion both installed. I am having the hard time to follow the instructions. They do not work for me.
On MacOS I open the terminal and put these in:
export LUA_DIR=/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1 (it tells me, mkdir: illegal option) and I can not follow from here
SET LUA_DIR=”c:\program files\lua\5.1”
As for Windows I do this according to the book.
This what I see in my shell c:\Users\bd>
mkdir "c:\program files\utility" and it tells me access is denied
I have tried to right click on this folder and check off read only, but it does not work.
Any clues would be appreciated, this part has been really confusing for me.
To package your Lua files into an executable on Windows you have several options. There is srlua, there is wxLuaFreeze from wxLua (available as a binary for Windows), and there are more options in this SO answer.
Essentially, the main two options are: (1) append your Lua code to a precompiled exe file, such that it will be loaded and executed when that exe file is run, and (2) convert your Lua code into real executable by compiling it to bytecode, then to C, and then to your target platform.
As to your MacOS issue, mkdir -p means that mkdir is asked to create intermediate directories (for example, you asked to create /a/b/c, it will also create /a/b if those don't exist). As you don't say which version of MacOS you run, it's difficult to provide more detailed answer.
For now the standard distribution of Lua does not compile a script to native executable code; it execute your scripts by first compiling it to bytecode, then by interpreting the bytecode with a reasonnably fast static interpret (this also means that it is easily portable across native or virtual systems, and very resistant to attacks (that could be targetting bugs in the native compiler itself).
Also Lua still does not feature a runtime JIT compiler like Java and .Net: Lua still does not features a VM to produce a safe sandbox.
There exists Lua packages that convert your bytecode (or directly a source script) to a C source that can be used to convert a Lua library into native mode via the same C compiler used to compile the Lua engine itself (this is how the builtin libraries are produced, though they are slightly optimized manually in some time-critical parts).
However it is possible to compile Lua to a javascript source, and run it with fast performance using Javascript, because today's Javascript interprets do have good performance with their implemented VM featuring a JIT compiler for their own bytecodes.
It is also possible by converting it the Lua bytecode to a .Net or Java source that can then be executed directly from Lua (for that you need a version of Lua that has been ported to .Net or Java or Javascript, something that is not so complicate than developing in C/C++ directly a VM with a JIT compiler (a moderately complex part is the bytecode verifier, but the really complex part is the memory manager its garbage collector and its sandbox so that your Lua script will be fully isolated from the Lua engine itself for itw own memory, but the most complex part if the runtime optimizer and collection of profiling statistics: this has been done in the modern VMs for Java, .Net, Javascript, PHP/Zend, Python, Perl...).
I dont know which other language VM would offer the best performance to port Lua and implement on it a compiler to their own bytecode running at near native speed in their VM. But my own small experience with programs (in a much simpler language) self-generating a bytecode that they can run themselves, has always shown me Java winning in performance over .Net and Javascript. This is most probably because Java features an profiling-based dynamic code optimizer
(On the opposite the .Net optimizer runs only once during program installation, using some profiling data collected during the installation of the .Net VM itself, or at first instanciation of the script, without really knowing any profiling data collected during execution of the compiled program itself, and based on some cheked assumptions about the platform capabilities).
I also don't if would be faster in PHP, Python or Perl; the comparison with newer Javascript engines was never attempted though. Porting/compiling a Lua program to Javascript is relatively easy because it implements closures relatively easy for the resolution of linkages. Then the generated Javascript will compile to native code with the excellent Javascript's JIT compilers we have today (and never cease to improve in performance, so much that I've seen various appliactions running now faster in Javascript than before when they were written in C++ or plain C; as well the memory footprint has largely been reduced, we no longer have memory leaks, and even if there's a garbage collector, today's Javascript VM have a very efficient one, which is even better than the GC implemented in the native Lua).
But Lua remains useful as it is easy to secure and sandbox and offers various security benefits (but there are security issues in Lua as well for some kinds of applications, where Javascript offers some solutions, notably for side-channel attacks based on variation of time of execution; but these side-channel attacks are very hard to solve and can affect any system, any program, any programming language, and this starts becoming a critical issue because they are now more esily exploitable; the reason of that comes from hardware optimizations that we depend more and more today when we want to maximize the performances). And with Lua you may be more immune to these problems that a sandboxing sofware environment cannot solve alone.
Probably later we'll see a true VM implementation of Lua with a JIT and self-generating code and the possibility to instanciate new sandboxed VMs to run their self-generated code. It will take more time to generate an EXE file for distribution; notably because it generally requires adding also an installer and a distribution manager.
So for now we could imagine distributing Lua applications compiled to the bytecode of another JIT-capable VM: this generated bytecode would be faster than the Lua bytecode, and would then be extremely complex to reverse-engineer to the semantics of Lua because it would require two separate reverse engineering first from the bytecode of the other VM to the bytecode of Lua, both bytecodes loosing some easiy inferable rules and options tested and foll, and then again to sme Lua source
For the OSX terminal issue:
This command should work
export LUA_DIR=/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
This command will probably give you permission problems:
mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
You may try this to solve that. You will be prompted for your password:
sudo mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1
This command has nothing to do with OSX and will not work. This is a windows command:
SET LUA_DIR=”c:\program files\lua\5.1”
You have a permissions problem with Windows- try creating your cmd or PowerShell in Administrator mode. C:\Program Files is a protected directory that a regular user account doesn't have permission to write to.
As for the OS X issue, check out the mkdir OS X manual page to make sure you have the command correct.
So, if I understood your question correctly, you are trying to build Lua on Windows.
This is of course possible, but not easy for beginners. I would highly recommend you to use a binary distribution, which is much easier to install, unless you have special requirements.
Here are several Windows distributions :
Lua Binaries (Lua 5.1 and 5.2)
LuaForWindows (Lua 5.1)
LuaDist (Lua 5.2)
If I compile a regular .lua file with luac, can the result be ran without the Lua library or interpreter installed?
No. You can run it on a version of Lua that was built without the compiler, but you still need the Lua interpreter to execute the code.
Incidentally, the compiled Lua bytecode is also machine-specific; i.e. you can't compile on one architecture and then run that output on another architecture unless you understand the subtleties (endianness, sizes of types, etc.).
If your code doesn't use any dynamic load-based facility (that's loadstring, loadfile, require, etc.) you can strip Lua library to just a VM, because what compiler emits is code to be run on this virtual machine. This can easily cut Lua already small footprint to 1/3 fraction of original.
However, since this is NOT a native binary code for any currently existing architecture, you still CAN'T run it directly without assistance of VM.