Is there a way to execute a native binary from a pipe?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
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
add a comment |
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
I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just usecsh
.
– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:02
add a comment |
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
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
shell executable stdout
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 usecsh
.
– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:02
add a comment |
I believe that basic security mechanisms must prevent this. But if your intension is to run C code on-the-fly, just usecsh
.
– 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
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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);
You don't need thememfd.h
header unless you want to useMFD_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 yourelfexec
, since that will also allow you to specifyargv[0]
, and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))
– mosvy
Jan 6 at 13:36
add a comment |
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.
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 usecsh
.
– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:03
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
|
show 2 more comments
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);
You don't need thememfd.h
header unless you want to useMFD_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 yourelfexec
, since that will also allow you to specifyargv[0]
, and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))
– mosvy
Jan 6 at 13:36
add a comment |
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);
You don't need thememfd.h
header unless you want to useMFD_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 yourelfexec
, since that will also allow you to specifyargv[0]
, and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))
– mosvy
Jan 6 at 13:36
add a comment |
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);
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);
edited Jan 5 at 15:35
answered Jan 4 at 19:18
kankan
1313
1313
You don't need thememfd.h
header unless you want to useMFD_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 yourelfexec
, since that will also allow you to specifyargv[0]
, and will run a binary only from a pipe (UUoC mandated ;-))
– mosvy
Jan 6 at 13:36
add a comment |
You don't need thememfd.h
header unless you want to useMFD_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 yourelfexec
, since that will also allow you to specifyargv[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
add a comment |
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.
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 usecsh
.
– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:03
add a comment |
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.
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 usecsh
.
– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:03
add a comment |
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.
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.
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 usecsh
.
– rozcietrzewiacz
Oct 7 '11 at 15:03
add a comment |
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 usecsh
.
– 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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered May 11 '12 at 14:10
TheQUUXTheQUUX
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
answered Apr 18 '18 at 14:35
Doron BeharDoron Behar
17711
17711
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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