I'm facing problem with lua,
Everytime I'm executing a function/command or even define a variable, everything is stored as a string in memory.
And it can be read via programs like Cheat Engine or HxD
For example
x = 'Test'
If I search for the string x = '
I will be able to extra the whole command from memory.
Same for functions
function Test()
print(1);
end
Searching Test() will allow me to obtain the whole function script.
Here's an example image
http://i40.tinypic.com/6oh281.png
as you can see in the bottom of the Memory Viewer window, theres the whole function information.
Now how could I prevent lua from creating 'extra' copies of the script in memory?
Garbagecollector does not wipe it out.
Any solution or idea to prevent this would be welcomed.
I’m not sure what you mean but try luaL_loadbuffer(L,script,strlen(script),”=noname”)for loading scripts. If you use luaL_dostring then the entire script is saved as its own name.
Note also that you can load a script once and run it multiple times, without having to load it again.
You don't need to load the Lua source of a script at all. Pre-compile the script with luac -s. Of course, the Lua bytecode and strings will still be accessible in memory and just as easily found.
Update
The output of luac is a script in binary form. Use it just like a Lua script. You can use it with loadstring, loadfile etc.
Make your test.lua:
print("testing")
Test:
luac -o test.lub -s test.lua
lua test.lua
lua test.lub
To see what you are exposing vs the Lua source:
luac -l test.lub
By default lua stores the key(x) as string, and value as object on memory, There's not much you can do with it except managing your scripts and storing values inside a block only. Still, This way can be detected by cheat-engines but it's a lot more secure than default.
safe.lua:
local protected = {}
protected.x = "Test"
safe = {}
function safe.Get(pass, val)
if pass == "0x012345" then
if not protected[val] then return nil end
return protected[val]
end
return nil
end
function safe.Set(pass, val, key)
if not pass == "0x012345" then return end
protected[val] = key
end
function safe.Remove(pass, val)
if not pass == "0x012345" then return end
if not protected[val] then return end
protected[val] = nil
end
test.lua:
safe.Set("0x012345", "b", {C = "111"})
print(safe.Get("0x012345", "b").C)
If you want to use a custom pass for each key, then use this safe.lua:
local protected = {}
safe = {}
function safe.Get(pass, val)
if protected[val] then
if not protected[val][pass] then return nil end
return protected[val][pass]
end
return nil
end
function safe.Set(pass, val, key)
protected[val] = {}
protected[val][pass] = key
end
function safe.Remove(pass, val)
if not protected[val] then return end
if not protected[val][pass] then return end
protected[val][pass] = nil
end
and test.lua:
safe.Set("tsting", "x", "keey")
print(safe.Get("tsting", "x"))
print(safe.Get("testing", "x"))
Related
So i'm making my own OS for LIKO-12 and I need to run .lk12 files but i need to have a function to run a string as code and return a table that has all of the variables that code created
Example:
function foo()
return "Hello,"
end
function bar()
return " World!"
end
hello = foo()..bar()
should return a table with 2 functions:
A function called foo that returns "Hello,"
A function called bar that returns " World!"
and a variable called hello that has "Hello, World!"
You should be able to call a function from the code using
vars["foo"]() or vars.foo()
Can anyone help me?
When you create or use a global variable it's actually stored in a table called "the environment", or _ENV (which is not global, it's a local that you get automatically)
So your code:
function foo()
return "Hello,"
end
function bar()
return " World!"
end
hello = foo()..bar()
is really doing:
function _ENV.foo()
return "Hello,"
end
function _ENV.bar()
return " World!"
end
_ENV.hello = _ENV.foo().._ENV.bar()
so if we just set _ENV to a new table, and return it, then this is exactly the table you want. You can do this with load (which is how you run strings) by passing it as the 4th argument. This function will do that:
function loadAndReturnEnv(codeString)
local env = {}
load(codeString, nil, nil, env)() -- error checking skipped for demonstration
return env
end
However, note that all the usual global stuff like string.rep, table.sort, load, print don't exist in this new _ENV. If that's what you want, that's great. But I guess you probably do want them. In that case we can use the metatable __index feature, so that if the code looks for something in its _ENV and it's not there, it looks in our (the caller's) _ENV instead.
function loadAndReturnEnvWithGlobals(codeString)
-- note: env is the environment for the code we're about to run
-- (which will be called _ENV in that code), and _ENV is the environment
-- of the loadAndReturnEnvWithGlobals function (i.e. the "real" environment)
local env = {}
setmetatable(env, {__index=_ENV})
load(codeString, nil, nil, env)() -- error checking skipped for demonstration
setmetatable(env, nil) -- set the table back to normal before we return it
return env
end
But wait... the program can now call print when you run it, but if it defines a function, that function can't call print since we deleted the link back to the real environment after the code returned. So I think the best way to fix that is to leave the environment linked, and just copy the functions etc.
function loadAndReturnEnvWithGlobals2(codeString)
local env = {}
setmetatable(env, {__index=_ENV})
load(codeString, nil, nil, env)() -- error checking skipped for demonstration
local result = {}
for k,v in pairs(env) do result[k]=v end
return result
end
although this copies the values, so if you have any functions that change the variables, you won't see the changed variables.
Which version you use is up to you. They each have pros and cons.
Lets take a look at this pseudo code example:
-- Wraps a function with given parameters inside a callback
-- Usefull for sending class methods as callbacks.
-- E.g. callback(object.method, object)
local function callback(func, ...)
return function(...)
func(..., ...)
end
end
How would I go about this?
I know there is unpack, but it would get swallowed by the second vararg:
local function callback(func, ...)
local args = { ... }
return function(...)
func(table.unpack(args), ...)
end
end
callback(print, "First", "Second")("Third") --> prints First Third
The only option I found so far, is to concat those together and then unpack it:
local function callback(func, ...)
local args1 = { ... }
return function(...)
local args2 = { ... }
local args = { }
for _, value in ipairs(args1) do
table.insert(args, value)
end
for _, value in ipairs(args2) do
table.insert(args, value)
end
func(table.unpack(args))
end
end
Is this the only solution, or could I do better?
What I would like to have is either a function, that concats two arrays together (which should be faster than those two for loops) and then use table.unpack on it, or make those varargs concat.
From the Lua 5.4 Reference Manual: 3.4 Expressions
If an expression is used as the last (or the only) element of a list
of expressions, then no adjustment is made (unless the expression is
enclosed in parentheses). In all other contexts, Lua adjusts the
result list to one element, either discarding all values except the
first one or adding a single nil if there are no values.
So the only way is to manually combine both lists to a single one befor you use them.
There are several ways to do this.
for i,v in ipairs(list2) do
table.insert(list1, v)
end
for i,v in ipairs(list2) do
list1[#list1+i] = v
end
table.move(list2, 1, #list2, #list1 + 1, list1)
I'm not sure what kind of problem you're actually trying to solve here.
If you want to access your object from its methods use self.
-- Wraps a function with given parameters inside a callback
-- Usefull for sending class methods as callbacks.
-- E.g. callback(object.method, object)
Usually you would do something like this:
local callback = function(params) object:method(params) end
callback(params)
Instead of
callback(print, "First", "Second")("Third")
You could do this
local callback = function (...) print("First", "Second", ...) end
callback("Third")
Edit ( opinonated )
My main goal is to use member functions as callbacks. However, I'd
like to keep it general. The advantage of a callback function is to
omit the function and end keyword. It's shorter and looks closer to
what it would look like, if there would be no need for a self
argument. So this: object.event = function(...) return
self:method(...) end would become to this: object.event =
callback(self.method, self) what would be even nicer, is this (sadly
not possible in lua) object.event = self:method
So instead of
RegisterCallback(function() obj:method() end)
You say it is easier to do this, so you don't have to write function end?
local function callback(func, ...)
local args1 = { ... }
return function(...)
local args2 = { ... }
local args = { }
for _, value in ipairs(args1) do
table.insert(args, value)
end
for _, value in ipairs(args2) do
table.insert(args, value)
end
func(table.unpack(args))
end
end
RegisterCallback(callback(obj.method, obj)())
Your approach is not going to work if any of the arguments is nil to begin with. And there is not a single advantage. You're just typing other words while increasing the chance of running into errors.
You can control the param order to optimize your function.
local function callback(func, ...)
local args = {...}
return function(...)
func(..., table.unpack(args))
end
end
callback(print, "second", "third")("first") -- prints first second third
I am sure I am missing something ridiculously simple, but I stared at this long enough to ask for your help. I am trying to write the simplest of all loggers, and when I'm trying to run it, it's not seeing the global variable (that I (think) I declare!). I am an "advanced" beginner in lua, so silly mistakes are not as common, but still do happen in my case. Please, tell me what I'm missing here!
Here's the logger code, and I'm testing it within the script....
local type, pairs, table, tostring, io, os, print = type, pairs, table, tostring, io, os, print
local file
LEVELS = {}
LEVELS ["ERROR"] = 0
LEVELS ["WARN"] = 1
LEVELS ["INFO"] = 2
LEVELS ["DEBUG"] = 3
print (LEVELS.WARN)
local level
function init (outputFile, debugLevel)
level = debugLevel
file = io.open(outputFile, "a")
local ret
if (file == nil) then ret = false else ret = true end
return ret
end
function warn (message)
if level ~= nil and level >= LEVELS.WARN and file ~= nil then
log(message)
end
end
function log (message)
local timestamp = os.date()
file:write(timestamp..' - '..message..'\n')
file:flush()
end
function deInit ()
file:close()
end
init ("testInsideLogger.lua", 3)
warn("HI")
deInit()
What I get in the output:
Print right after the declaration of LEVELS works, prints out 1.
But when I call the warn("HI") method, I get
attempt to index global 'LEVELS' (a nil value).
WHY???
Thank you so much for your help!
I'm working in LuaJIT and have all my libraries and whatnot stored inside "foo", like this:
foo = {}; -- The only global variable
foo.print = {};
foo.print.say = function(msg) print(msg) end;
foo.print.say("test")
Now I was wondering, would using metatables and keeping all libraries local help at all? Or would it not matter. What I thought of is this:
foo = {};
local libraries = {};
setmetatable(foo, {
__index = function(t, key)
return libraries[key];
end
});
-- A function to create a new library.
function foo.NewLibrary(name)
libraries[name] = {};
return libraries[name];
end;
local printLib = foo.NewLibrary("print");
printLib.say = function(msg) print(msg) end;
-- Other file:
foo.print.say("test")
I don't really have the tools to benchmark this right now, but would keeping the actual contents of the libraries in a local table increase performance at all? Even the slightest?
I hope I made mysef clear on this, basically all I want to know is: Performance-wise is the second method better?
If someone could link/give a detailed explaination on how global variables are processed in Lua which could explain this that would be great too.
don't really have the tools to benchmark this right now
Sure you do.
local start = os.clock()
for i=1,100000 do -- adjust iterations to taste
-- the thing you want to test
end
print(os.clock() - start)
With performance, you pretty much always want to benchmark.
would keeping the actual contents of the libraries in a local table increase performance at all?
Compared to the first version of the code? Theoretically no.
Your first example (stripping out the unnecessary cruft):
foo = {}
foo.print = {}
function foo.print.say(msg)
print(msg)
end
To get to your print function requires three table lookups:
index _ENV with "foo"
index foo table with "print"
index foo.print table with "say".
Your second example:
local libraries = {}
libraries.print = {}
function libraries.print.say(msg)
print(msg)
end
foo = {}
setmetatable(foo, {
__index = function(t, key)
return libraries[key];
end
});
To get to your print function now requires five table lookups along with other additional work:
index _ENV with "foo"
index foo table with "print"
Lua finds the result is nil, checks to see if foo has a metatable, finds one
index metatable with "__index"
check to see if the result is is is table or function, Lua find it's a function so it calls it with the key
index libraries with "print"
index the print table with "say"
Some of this extra work is done in the C code, so it's going to be faster than if this was all implemented in Lua, but it's definitely going to take more time.
Benchmarking using the loop I showed above, the first version is roughly twice as fast as the second in vanilla Lua. In LuaJIT, both are exactly the same speed. Obviously the difference gets optimized away at runtime in LuaJIT (which is pretty impressive). Just goes to show how important benchmarking is.
Side note: Lua allows you to supply a table for __index, which will result in a lookup equivalent to your code:
setmetatable(foo, { __index = function(t, key) return libraries[key] end } )
So you could just write:
setmetatable(foo, { __index = libraries })
This also happens to be a lot faster.
Here is how I write my modules:
-- foo.lua
local MyLib = {}
function MyLib.foo()
...
end
return MyLib
-- bar.lua
local MyLib = require("foo.lua")
MyLib.foo()
Note that the return MyLib is not in a function. require captures this return value and uses it as the library. This way, there are no globals.
I embedded Lua and want scripts to be able to read the global table but not automatically write to it so two scripts can write variables with the same name without overwriting eachother but still being able to add stuff to the global table. I can't really explain it better then this:
Script 1
var1 = "foo"
_G.var2 = "bar"
Script 2
print(var1) -- Prints nil
print(var2) -- Prints 'bar'
How I tried to accomplish this is by doing something like this (The 'scripts' being a function)
newScript = function(content)
Script = loadstring(content)()
env = setmetatable({},{__index = _G})
setfenv(Script,env)
return Script
end
My Lua binding is LuaJ, for the sake of giving all information here is that code too:
private LuaValue newScript(String content){
LuaTable envMt = new LuaTable();
envMt.set(INDEX, _G);
LuaTable env = new LuaTable();
env.setmetatable(envMt);
LuaClosure func = (LuaClosure) _G.get("loadstring").call(valueOf(content));
thread = new LuaThread(func,env);
thread.resume(NIL);
return thread;
}
It's not __index that you want to change, it's __newindex. In addition, you can't use __index to catch access to keys that do exist in the table. The only way to make a table read-only in all situations is to defer all reads to a proxy table and throw an error on writes.
Here's a function I use to return a read-only table:
function ro_table (t)
local t = t
if t then
return setmetatable({},
{ __index=t,
__newindex= function(_,_,_) error ("Attempt to modify read-only table") end,
})
else
return nil
end
end
So for your code, you'd have the following:
newScript = function(content)
Script = loadstring(content)()
setfenv(Script,ro_table(_G))
return Script
end
Note that this does not work recursively, so if you have any table defined as a global (or even any of the built-in functions) the contents can be changed, but the table itself cannot be replaced.