Is there a way to execute a native binary from a pipe?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












12















echo 'main()' | gcc -xc - -o /dev/stdout | ???


Is there a way to run the output binary on a unix-like system?



EDIT: I needed it to run the output of g++ in a sandboxed environment where I can't write any file (nothing malicious, I promise).










share|improve this question
























  • I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just use csh.

    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Oct 7 '11 at 15:02















12















echo 'main()' | gcc -xc - -o /dev/stdout | ???


Is there a way to run the output binary on a unix-like system?



EDIT: I needed it to run the output of g++ in a sandboxed environment where I can't write any file (nothing malicious, I promise).










share|improve this question
























  • I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just use csh.

    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Oct 7 '11 at 15:02













12












12








12








echo 'main()' | gcc -xc - -o /dev/stdout | ???


Is there a way to run the output binary on a unix-like system?



EDIT: I needed it to run the output of g++ in a sandboxed environment where I can't write any file (nothing malicious, I promise).










share|improve this question
















echo 'main()' | gcc -xc - -o /dev/stdout | ???


Is there a way to run the output binary on a unix-like system?



EDIT: I needed it to run the output of g++ in a sandboxed environment where I can't write any file (nothing malicious, I promise).







shell executable stdout






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 11 '12 at 13:45









rozcietrzewiacz

29k47292




29k47292










asked Oct 7 '11 at 13:03









Alex BAlex B

2,36352738




2,36352738












  • I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just use csh.

    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Oct 7 '11 at 15:02

















  • I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just use csh.

    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Oct 7 '11 at 15:02
















I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just use csh.

– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:02





I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just use csh.

– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:02










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















7














I don't believe this is possible. The exec(2) system call always requires a filename or absolute path (the filename is always a char*). posix_spawn also has similar requirements for a filename.



The closest you could do is pipe the output into a named pipe and try executing from the pipe. That may work, although the shell may refuse to execute any file that does not have the --x--x--x bits set. Create the pipe with mkfifo(1) and see if you can get it to work.



Another approach would be to write something that reads standard input, writes a file out to a temporay area, sets the --x bits on it, forks and execs then deletes the file. The inode and contents will remain until the program finishes executing but it won't be accessible through the file system. When the process terminates the inode will be released and storage will be returned to the free list.



EDIT: As Mat points out, the first approach won't work as the loader will attempt to demand-page in the executable, which will generate random seek traffic on the file, and this isn't possible on a pipe. This leaves some sort of approach like the second.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

    – Mat
    Oct 7 '11 at 14:05












  • @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Oct 7 '11 at 15:49












  • Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

    – Mat
    Oct 7 '11 at 16:05











  • @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

    – Alex B
    Oct 8 '11 at 1:16











  • @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

    – David Schwartz
    Oct 8 '11 at 5:10



















3














A solution using memfd syscall: https://github.com/abbat/elfexec



It creates a named file descriptor in memory which could be used in exec. A pseudo-code:



#include <linux/memfd.h>
...
int memfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "someName", 0);
...
write(memfd,... elf-content...);
...
fexecve(memfd, argv, environ);





share|improve this answer

























  • You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

    – mosvy
    Jan 6 at 13:36



















2














This will automatically run the compilation of your code, but creates a file (temparaily) on the filesystem in order to do it.



echo 'main()' | gcc -xc -o /tmp/a.out && chmod u+x /tmp/a.out && /tmp/a.out && rm -f /tmp/a.out


(I'm currently testing this now, but I'm pretty sure this, or something close to it will work for you)



EDIT: If the goal of your piping is to cut physical disks out of the equation for speed, consider creating a ram disk to hold the intermediate file.






share|improve this answer

























  • This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Oct 7 '11 at 14:47











  • @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

    – dtyler
    Oct 7 '11 at 14:59











  • Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Oct 7 '11 at 15:03


















2














You could try tcc, which will compile and execute a program in one step, without writing any intermediate files. It's not gcc, which may be a problem for you, but it is spectacularly fast, so it may even bet better than gcc for your purposes.






share|improve this answer






























    0














    Just like @TheQUUX suggested, I haven't tested it my self but you might want to try out cling - "the interactive C++ interpreter, built on top of LLVM and Clang libraries.".



    Find more info here: https://cdn.rawgit.com/root-project/cling/master/www/index.html






    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "106"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22253%2fis-there-a-way-to-execute-a-native-binary-from-a-pipe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7














      I don't believe this is possible. The exec(2) system call always requires a filename or absolute path (the filename is always a char*). posix_spawn also has similar requirements for a filename.



      The closest you could do is pipe the output into a named pipe and try executing from the pipe. That may work, although the shell may refuse to execute any file that does not have the --x--x--x bits set. Create the pipe with mkfifo(1) and see if you can get it to work.



      Another approach would be to write something that reads standard input, writes a file out to a temporay area, sets the --x bits on it, forks and execs then deletes the file. The inode and contents will remain until the program finishes executing but it won't be accessible through the file system. When the process terminates the inode will be released and storage will be returned to the free list.



      EDIT: As Mat points out, the first approach won't work as the loader will attempt to demand-page in the executable, which will generate random seek traffic on the file, and this isn't possible on a pipe. This leaves some sort of approach like the second.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 2





        I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:05












      • @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

        – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:49












      • Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 16:05











      • @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

        – Alex B
        Oct 8 '11 at 1:16











      • @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

        – David Schwartz
        Oct 8 '11 at 5:10
















      7














      I don't believe this is possible. The exec(2) system call always requires a filename or absolute path (the filename is always a char*). posix_spawn also has similar requirements for a filename.



      The closest you could do is pipe the output into a named pipe and try executing from the pipe. That may work, although the shell may refuse to execute any file that does not have the --x--x--x bits set. Create the pipe with mkfifo(1) and see if you can get it to work.



      Another approach would be to write something that reads standard input, writes a file out to a temporay area, sets the --x bits on it, forks and execs then deletes the file. The inode and contents will remain until the program finishes executing but it won't be accessible through the file system. When the process terminates the inode will be released and storage will be returned to the free list.



      EDIT: As Mat points out, the first approach won't work as the loader will attempt to demand-page in the executable, which will generate random seek traffic on the file, and this isn't possible on a pipe. This leaves some sort of approach like the second.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 2





        I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:05












      • @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

        – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:49












      • Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 16:05











      • @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

        – Alex B
        Oct 8 '11 at 1:16











      • @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

        – David Schwartz
        Oct 8 '11 at 5:10














      7












      7








      7







      I don't believe this is possible. The exec(2) system call always requires a filename or absolute path (the filename is always a char*). posix_spawn also has similar requirements for a filename.



      The closest you could do is pipe the output into a named pipe and try executing from the pipe. That may work, although the shell may refuse to execute any file that does not have the --x--x--x bits set. Create the pipe with mkfifo(1) and see if you can get it to work.



      Another approach would be to write something that reads standard input, writes a file out to a temporay area, sets the --x bits on it, forks and execs then deletes the file. The inode and contents will remain until the program finishes executing but it won't be accessible through the file system. When the process terminates the inode will be released and storage will be returned to the free list.



      EDIT: As Mat points out, the first approach won't work as the loader will attempt to demand-page in the executable, which will generate random seek traffic on the file, and this isn't possible on a pipe. This leaves some sort of approach like the second.






      share|improve this answer















      I don't believe this is possible. The exec(2) system call always requires a filename or absolute path (the filename is always a char*). posix_spawn also has similar requirements for a filename.



      The closest you could do is pipe the output into a named pipe and try executing from the pipe. That may work, although the shell may refuse to execute any file that does not have the --x--x--x bits set. Create the pipe with mkfifo(1) and see if you can get it to work.



      Another approach would be to write something that reads standard input, writes a file out to a temporay area, sets the --x bits on it, forks and execs then deletes the file. The inode and contents will remain until the program finishes executing but it won't be accessible through the file system. When the process terminates the inode will be released and storage will be returned to the free list.



      EDIT: As Mat points out, the first approach won't work as the loader will attempt to demand-page in the executable, which will generate random seek traffic on the file, and this isn't possible on a pipe. This leaves some sort of approach like the second.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Oct 7 '11 at 15:52

























      answered Oct 7 '11 at 13:34









      ConcernedOfTunbridgeWellsConcernedOfTunbridgeWells

      1,950119




      1,950119







      • 2





        I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:05












      • @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

        – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:49












      • Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 16:05











      • @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

        – Alex B
        Oct 8 '11 at 1:16











      • @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

        – David Schwartz
        Oct 8 '11 at 5:10













      • 2





        I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:05












      • @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

        – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:49












      • Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

        – Mat
        Oct 7 '11 at 16:05











      • @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

        – Alex B
        Oct 8 '11 at 1:16











      • @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

        – David Schwartz
        Oct 8 '11 at 5:10








      2




      2





      I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

      – Mat
      Oct 7 '11 at 14:05






      I'd be really surprised if the pipe trick worked - you can't do random seeks on a pipe, and can't mmap them - I'm pretty sure that will annoy the runtime loader/linker :) Your second suggestion seems good though, can't come up with anything without a temporary file.

      – Mat
      Oct 7 '11 at 14:05














      @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

      – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
      Oct 7 '11 at 15:49






      @Mat - I think you're right. Demand paging in the executable would cause random access traffic which won't work on the pipe. Ironically it might have actually worked on SVR2.0 (the last version that didn't use demand paging) - Just to show my age I actually used to have an AT&T 3B2/400 once with SVR2.0 as the O/S.

      – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
      Oct 7 '11 at 15:49














      Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

      – Mat
      Oct 7 '11 at 16:05





      Thinking about it some more, I'm pretty sure exe packers like UPX can do the decompression and execution on read-only media. Modify whatever stub they tack on to packed executables to read from a pipe rather than decompress, and ... might work.

      – Mat
      Oct 7 '11 at 16:05













      @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

      – Alex B
      Oct 8 '11 at 1:16





      @Mat packers already have an image loaded they don't start a new process. To do the similar I need to have one of processes to make an arbitrary jump into input data (which would be considered a security vulnerability).

      – Alex B
      Oct 8 '11 at 1:16













      @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

      – David Schwartz
      Oct 8 '11 at 5:10






      @Alex B: You are specifically asking how to make an arbitrary jump into input data. Why would you complain when it's suggested that you do exactly that? Is the purpose of the sandbox specifically to prevent what you're trying to do?

      – David Schwartz
      Oct 8 '11 at 5:10














      3














      A solution using memfd syscall: https://github.com/abbat/elfexec



      It creates a named file descriptor in memory which could be used in exec. A pseudo-code:



      #include <linux/memfd.h>
      ...
      int memfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "someName", 0);
      ...
      write(memfd,... elf-content...);
      ...
      fexecve(memfd, argv, environ);





      share|improve this answer

























      • You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

        – mosvy
        Jan 6 at 13:36
















      3














      A solution using memfd syscall: https://github.com/abbat/elfexec



      It creates a named file descriptor in memory which could be used in exec. A pseudo-code:



      #include <linux/memfd.h>
      ...
      int memfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "someName", 0);
      ...
      write(memfd,... elf-content...);
      ...
      fexecve(memfd, argv, environ);





      share|improve this answer

























      • You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

        – mosvy
        Jan 6 at 13:36














      3












      3








      3







      A solution using memfd syscall: https://github.com/abbat/elfexec



      It creates a named file descriptor in memory which could be used in exec. A pseudo-code:



      #include <linux/memfd.h>
      ...
      int memfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "someName", 0);
      ...
      write(memfd,... elf-content...);
      ...
      fexecve(memfd, argv, environ);





      share|improve this answer















      A solution using memfd syscall: https://github.com/abbat/elfexec



      It creates a named file descriptor in memory which could be used in exec. A pseudo-code:



      #include <linux/memfd.h>
      ...
      int memfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "someName", 0);
      ...
      write(memfd,... elf-content...);
      ...
      fexecve(memfd, argv, environ);






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jan 5 at 15:35

























      answered Jan 4 at 19:18









      kankan

      1313




      1313












      • You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

        – mosvy
        Jan 6 at 13:36


















      • You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

        – mosvy
        Jan 6 at 13:36

















      You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

      – mosvy
      Jan 6 at 13:36






      You don't need the memfd.h header unless you want to use MFD_CLOEXEC (which will break #! /bin/sh scripts because of bugs in linux' fexecve()). That's not too complicated, you can include a 20-line working sample in your answer (eg. this git gist -- though that's not a drop-in replacement for your elfexec, since that will also allow you to specify argv[0], and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))

      – mosvy
      Jan 6 at 13:36












      2














      This will automatically run the compilation of your code, but creates a file (temparaily) on the filesystem in order to do it.



      echo 'main()' | gcc -xc -o /tmp/a.out && chmod u+x /tmp/a.out && /tmp/a.out && rm -f /tmp/a.out


      (I'm currently testing this now, but I'm pretty sure this, or something close to it will work for you)



      EDIT: If the goal of your piping is to cut physical disks out of the equation for speed, consider creating a ram disk to hold the intermediate file.






      share|improve this answer

























      • This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:47











      • @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

        – dtyler
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:59











      • Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:03















      2














      This will automatically run the compilation of your code, but creates a file (temparaily) on the filesystem in order to do it.



      echo 'main()' | gcc -xc -o /tmp/a.out && chmod u+x /tmp/a.out && /tmp/a.out && rm -f /tmp/a.out


      (I'm currently testing this now, but I'm pretty sure this, or something close to it will work for you)



      EDIT: If the goal of your piping is to cut physical disks out of the equation for speed, consider creating a ram disk to hold the intermediate file.






      share|improve this answer

























      • This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:47











      • @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

        – dtyler
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:59











      • Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:03













      2












      2








      2







      This will automatically run the compilation of your code, but creates a file (temparaily) on the filesystem in order to do it.



      echo 'main()' | gcc -xc -o /tmp/a.out && chmod u+x /tmp/a.out && /tmp/a.out && rm -f /tmp/a.out


      (I'm currently testing this now, but I'm pretty sure this, or something close to it will work for you)



      EDIT: If the goal of your piping is to cut physical disks out of the equation for speed, consider creating a ram disk to hold the intermediate file.






      share|improve this answer















      This will automatically run the compilation of your code, but creates a file (temparaily) on the filesystem in order to do it.



      echo 'main()' | gcc -xc -o /tmp/a.out && chmod u+x /tmp/a.out && /tmp/a.out && rm -f /tmp/a.out


      (I'm currently testing this now, but I'm pretty sure this, or something close to it will work for you)



      EDIT: If the goal of your piping is to cut physical disks out of the equation for speed, consider creating a ram disk to hold the intermediate file.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Oct 7 '11 at 15:04

























      answered Oct 7 '11 at 14:33









      dtylerdtyler

      27613




      27613












      • This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:47











      • @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

        – dtyler
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:59











      • Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:03

















      • This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:47











      • @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

        – dtyler
        Oct 7 '11 at 14:59











      • Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

        – rozcietrzewiacz
        Oct 7 '11 at 15:03
















      This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

      – rozcietrzewiacz
      Oct 7 '11 at 14:47





      This will work of course, but it misses the main point of the question - to execute a binary code that is never written to disk.

      – rozcietrzewiacz
      Oct 7 '11 at 14:47













      @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

      – dtyler
      Oct 7 '11 at 14:59





      @rozcietrzewiacz My hope was the it would be useful if the goal was to easily run a snippit of code on the fly without dealing with the required physical file.

      – dtyler
      Oct 7 '11 at 14:59













      Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

      – rozcietrzewiacz
      Oct 7 '11 at 15:03





      Yes, I understand. But for that, one could simply use csh.

      – rozcietrzewiacz
      Oct 7 '11 at 15:03











      2














      You could try tcc, which will compile and execute a program in one step, without writing any intermediate files. It's not gcc, which may be a problem for you, but it is spectacularly fast, so it may even bet better than gcc for your purposes.






      share|improve this answer



























        2














        You could try tcc, which will compile and execute a program in one step, without writing any intermediate files. It's not gcc, which may be a problem for you, but it is spectacularly fast, so it may even bet better than gcc for your purposes.






        share|improve this answer

























          2












          2








          2







          You could try tcc, which will compile and execute a program in one step, without writing any intermediate files. It's not gcc, which may be a problem for you, but it is spectacularly fast, so it may even bet better than gcc for your purposes.






          share|improve this answer













          You could try tcc, which will compile and execute a program in one step, without writing any intermediate files. It's not gcc, which may be a problem for you, but it is spectacularly fast, so it may even bet better than gcc for your purposes.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered May 11 '12 at 14:10









          TheQUUXTheQUUX

          212




          212





















              0














              Just like @TheQUUX suggested, I haven't tested it my self but you might want to try out cling - "the interactive C++ interpreter, built on top of LLVM and Clang libraries.".



              Find more info here: https://cdn.rawgit.com/root-project/cling/master/www/index.html






              share|improve this answer



























                0














                Just like @TheQUUX suggested, I haven't tested it my self but you might want to try out cling - "the interactive C++ interpreter, built on top of LLVM and Clang libraries.".



                Find more info here: https://cdn.rawgit.com/root-project/cling/master/www/index.html






                share|improve this answer

























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  Just like @TheQUUX suggested, I haven't tested it my self but you might want to try out cling - "the interactive C++ interpreter, built on top of LLVM and Clang libraries.".



                  Find more info here: https://cdn.rawgit.com/root-project/cling/master/www/index.html






                  share|improve this answer













                  Just like @TheQUUX suggested, I haven't tested it my self but you might want to try out cling - "the interactive C++ interpreter, built on top of LLVM and Clang libraries.".



                  Find more info here: https://cdn.rawgit.com/root-project/cling/master/www/index.html







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 18 '18 at 14:35









                  Doron BeharDoron Behar

                  17711




                  17711



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22253%2fis-there-a-way-to-execute-a-native-binary-from-a-pipe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown






                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Bahrain

                      Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay