How can I access an attribute that's been hidden via:
__attribute__((visibility("hidden")))
I'm trying to access UINavigationItemButtonView, but it seems sometime recent (iOS 7.1?) they've added the above into the header file. Recursively printing the window no longer reveals UINavigationItemButtonView in the view stack either.
So, given a UINavigationBar, how can I access a UINavigationItemButtonView that has been hidden via the above flag?
Printing all the subviews in UINavigationBar doesn't reveal it.
The attribute keyword is simply a message to the compiler, and has nothing to do with the runtime. Using ((visibility("xxx")) only serves to tell the compiler if the given declaration should be "visible" or usable by clients in some other package. visibility("hidden") just means that, despite the public declaration, make this thing invisible to external packages, so that they will not be able to use it. Compiling will fail if you attempt to use this class or method.
If you don't see this class being used in a recursive description, it is likely that this class is no longer used; it certainly isn't because of the attribute statement.
Since it's a private class, you shouldn't. Anything you do to bypass that restriction may result in your application failing the review process. Not to mention that, in general, accessing private and/or hidden API's, classes, instance variables, properties or whatever else it is, is a really good way to make sure your application breaks in the (not too distant) future.
Related
I've been playing around with a button in my storyboard, and had a hard time getting a border around it, until I found a page where it showed how to add a User Defined Runtime Attribute. I was able to make the button look as I wanted, but I wanted to know if there was a way for me to view the list of available attributes for a particular Object.
Clicking the "+" to add a new attribute doesn't provide any kind of auto-complete to show the available ones, and looking through my project code doesn't seem to reveal anything either, not surprisingly. Is there somewhere I can find all of the available attributes for all/any Objects in Xcode? Searches here on SO and in general have not shown any useful results so far.
You can achieve the same thing from code, so just check the properties of UIButton (which is available in the documentation and with autocomplete) and you're good.
You also have to make sure you are checking the properties on an UIButton instance and not the class properties.
User defined runtime attribute is a list of key paths that NIB loading subsystem uses through unarchived process. After initialisation message -setValue:forKeyPath: will be send to your unarchiving object for each key path from this list. So available attributes are not more than set union of all methods with selector sort of -setAttribute: and ivars with "_attribute" or "attribute" name.
All that public attributes you may find at public headers or documentation.
There's also possible to set private attributes, but it's not good practice. For instance, you may find all ivars by breakpoint execution inside any method and look inside "self".
Often when debugging (and out of curiosity) I expand the object explorer at left and see lots of '_' prefixed fields of a UIKit object, say, UINavigationBar, as pictured below.
There's lots of fields like _titleView that must be deeply private, not even revealed when jumping to the class definition.
Furthermore the object explorer reveals classes like UINavigationItemView which the documentation doesn't even have, and which the lldb prompt denies knowing about.
(This is probably part of the issue: UINavigationItem.h has __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))
#interface UINavigationItemView : UIView { ... })
Again mostly out of curiosity but would like to shed light on the matter.
Those instances variables come from Objective-C runtime type information
The Objective-C runtime stores information about the iVars of classes, in the form of names and type encodings (https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjCRuntimeGuide/Articles/ocrtTypeEncodings.html)
The debugger knows how to poke at that runtime information, and produce a representation of the internal guts of your object from that information
That information is, however, not used by the language when making Objective-C types available to your Swift code
Part of the story is that this runtime information may be incorrect or incomplete, which would of course be solvable by blacklisting the erroneous cases (NSURL comes to mind as a typical example, and there are a few more caveats)
However, in general, the iVar information from the runtime is implementation detail and definitely not part of the public interface of a type. It is useful to see in the debugger, but it is not exposed as part of the type's interface in Swift. That explains the fact that, while you can see the data in the variables view, you can't actually evaluate expressions involving it
This question is specifically focused around static libraries / frameworks; in other words, code that other people will eventually touch.
I'm fairly well versed in properties, since I started iOS development when iOS 6 was released. I have used hidden properties declared in interface extensions to do all of my "private" property work, including using readonly on public facing properties I don't want others to modify and readwrite within interface extensions.
The important thing is that I do not want other people who are using these static libraries / frameworks to be accessing these properties if I don't allow it, nor writing these properties if I let them read it.
I've known for a while that they could theoretically create their own interface extension and make my readonly properties readwrite themselves, or guess the names of hidden properties.
If I want to prevent this, should I be using ivars with the #private tag with directly declared ivars? Are there potential downfalls to doing it this way? Does it actually get me an additional measure of security, or is it a red herring?
Under ARC the only mode supported by properties and not instance variables is copy - so if you need copy use a property.
If you declare your private instance variables in the #implementation section:
#implementation MyClass
{
// private instance vars
}
then it takes serious effort to access them from outside the class. As you say accessing a "private" property just takes guessing its name - or using the library calls which tell you.
Is it worth it for security? YMMV. But its a good coding practice regardless.
Addendum
As the comment trail shows there has been much discussion over my use of serious effort.
First let's be clear: Objective-C is in the C family of languages, they all allow the programmer to just about anything they choose while staying within the language[*] - these are not the languages of choice if you want strong typing, access restrictions, etc., etc. within your code.
Second, "effort" is not an absolute measure! So maybe I should have chosen the word "obvious" to qualify it rather than "serious". To access a private property just requires the use of a standard method call where the object has type id - there is little clue in the code that the method being called is hidden. To access a private variable requires either an API call (a runtime function or KVC call) or some pointer manipulation - the resultant code looks nothing like a standard variable assignment. So its more obvious.
That said, apart from uses requiring copy, under ARC there is no good reason to use a private property when a private instance variable will do. For a private variable fred compare:
self.fred = 42; // property access, may involve a call (if not optimised out)
_fred = 42; // common way to bypass the accessors and get at the underlying var
fred = 42; // direct access
Take your pick, there is no right answer, but there isn't a wrong one either - this is the realm of opinion (and that is of course an opinion ;-)). I would often pick the last one, private variable - clean & simple. However #RobNapier in his answer prefers the use of properties.
[*] Note: once you consider linking to external code, say written in assembler, all bets are of in any language. At that point you have to look at the "hardware" (real or virtual) and/or "OS" to provide protection.
You should use private ("hidden") properties here. There is no "security" risk. The "attacker" in this scenario is the caller. The caller has complete access to all memory in the process. She can access anything in your framework she wants and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop that (nor should you). This is true in any language. You can bypass "private:" designations in C++ as well if you know what you're doing. It's all just memory at the end of the day.
It is not your job to protect yourself or your framework from the caller. You both have the same goal: correct program behavior. Your goal is to protect callers from themselves. Make it difficult for them to use your framework incorrectly and easy to use it correctly.
So, you should use the tool that leads to the most correct code. And that tool is properties, and avoiding directly ivar access except in init and dealloc.
I am putting together a built-in script capability using the excellent Pascal DWScript. I have also add my own Delphi-side class definition (TDemo) to DWScript using:
dwsUnit.ExposeRTTI( TDemo.ClassInfo )
This just works and is a great way of quickly adding properties and methods.
I also wish to add an existing instance in a similar way, so I have created my instance FDemo of type TDemo and then performed:
dwsUnit.ExposeInstanceToUnit( 'Demo', 'TDemo', FDemo );
This looks a promising routine to call but I get an AV from an uninitialised unit table. I've also looked in the unit test code of the SVN source to see the use of this function but to no avail. Can anyone point me at what I should add / change?
ExposeInstanceToUnit has to be used from within the TdwsUnit table initialization, see RTTIExposeTests/ExposeInstancesAfterInitTable for some sample code. It allows directly exposing dynamic instances.
The other approach is to use the Instances collection of a TdwsUnit component, you get design-time support, and more controls over your instances and their lifetime.
Also keep in mind you have to make sure the instances you expose will properly behave even if the script misbehaves, f.i. when the user attempts to manually destroys an instance you exposed, and that instance shouldn't be destroyed. By default ExposeRTTI will map the destructors, so you may want to restrict that by specifying eoNoFreeOnCleanup.
edit: a last approach recently added is to use the TdwsRttiConnector, which basically allows exposing and connection to anything that's reachable through RTTI. That's very lightweight in terms of code to setup, but the downside is you don't get any form of compile-time checks.
I wasn't entirely sure how to name this, so apologies in advance.
You see, I'm trying to teach myself Win32/DirectX programming, utilizing Delphi (my language of choice) using this site - http://rastertek.com/tutindex.html
Of course, the site being all in C++, I have to port it to Delphi. It seemed simple enough, at first. I'm on the second tutorial for DirectX 11 - setting up the framework and getting the initial window to show up.
Now for my actual problem. I was getting Access Violation errors. So I found and started to use MadExcept to try and find out what was going on. So it tells me the lines, but I'm clueless as to how to solve the issues at hand.
I have everything set up to mimic as well as I can the original source code. The only real difference being that in the instances where a pointer to a class for a variable, such as the case with m_input, m_grahics, and system, I made a type for those. So I have the TSystemClass, TInputClass, TGraphicsClass, and then I have PSystemClass, etc. that = ^TSystemClass, etc. I figured that this would make things a bit simpler and more neater. On a side note, I assume it should be said, but I for the construction of the copy constructors made the initial classes inherit from TPersistent so I could use it's Assign procedure.
So, back to the Access Violation errors. So first, the problem was in the main program with system being of type PSystemClass. So for a reason unknown to me, when I tried to use system.create, it was at that very instant, creating the access violation. I then realized however that I wasn't assigning system the system.create. So I tried this, and it said that, and rightfully so I suppose, at compile time an error that the two were incompatible since system.create is of type TSystemClass, and system is of PSystemClass. So I tried typecasting it, and that worked. but once again, still getting the dreaded access violations.
So then I had an odd idea, maybe I should call the regular constructor right from the TSystemClass itself. And I tried, needed to typecast again. So I did. And it worked! No longer an access violation error there! Now... New problem! Or rather in this case "problems". There's 3 things now listed in the call stack in MadExcept. The first one:
m_hinstance := GetModuleHandle(nil);
It's saying that this is causing an access violation error. Though why is this, exactly? From what I understand and have read, if GetModuleHandle is set to null/nil, it should retrieve the handle for the file that called it, right? And from what the documentation says, that should be executable.
However note: I'm not sure if the fact that I have the main program, the systemclass stuff, the inputclass stuff, and the graphicsclass stuff, all in different program/unit files to mimic the nature of the original source code. So is this possibly what's causing it? And if so how would I fix it? By putting all of the code from the unit files into the main program file? Though that, in my own personal opinion, would be quite messy and unintuitive.
The next one baffles me even more.
InitializeWindows(ScreenWidth, ScreenHeight);
I'm not dealing with anything other then a function to register the window class and set things up for the window and all here. So I'm not quite sure what the problem here is since it only deals with 2 parameters and they're defined and all already before it's called. So I'm not quite sure what the problem here is at all and what exactly is causing the access violation.
and then finally the final one is in the main program:
return := system.initialize;
Return is what I used in all instances of the result variable of the original source code, as result is of course a built in variable of all functions.
I suppose if system is never able to properly do what it's meant to do then something could/should happen here. Likewise, because I used TSystemClass.Create (typecasted to PSystemClass) earlier to create system would that do anything here? And is it possibly linked to the other two because they're not able to do their own thing properly?
And on a final note; there is one last thing actually on the call stack in MadExcept.
It says Kernel32.dll in the module section, but aside from the main thread, it lists nothing else. (If this information is needed I'll gladly put it up).
Thanks in advance to anyone who's read this far and I hope to find some help on this problem so I may further my studies.
You're instantiating your classes all wrong. Here's an example from TSystemClass.Initialize:
m_Input := PInputClass(m_Input.create);
That's a variable you declared as a PInputClass.
Earlier, in TSystemClass.Create, you initialized that variable:
m_Input := nil;
So, since you have a null reference, it should be clear that you can't call any methods on it. In particular, you cannot call Create on it. Instead, call Create on the class you want to instantiate: TInputClass.Create.
That constructor returns a value of the type you constructed, a TInputClass. It doesn't return a PInputClass, so your type-cast is wrong. As Cosmin's comment explains, Delphi object variables are already pointers. It's exceedingly rare to have to declare a pointer type based on Delphi classes. The correct code is this:
m_Input := TInputClass.Create;
After that line, you check whether m_Input is null. You never have to do that in Delphi; a constructor either returns a valid object, or it doesn't return at all. If there's a problem constructing an object, the constructor throws an exception and the assignment statement never executes. (The original C++ code does it wrong, too. The new operator hasn't returned a null pointer on failure for over a decade, long before anyone was in a position to start writing a DirectX 11 tutorial.)
You should first of all try to get rid of the TPersistent inheritance. If you want to pass an object to a library its interface should be exactly the same as the original that is used in C++. By inheriting from TPersistent you take a whole lot of load into your class that might be not needed or might even be the reason of your problems.
Additionally it would help if you posted the exact output of the exceptions. Or even the CallStack. That might help tracing down the error.