A customer was trying to figure out how to use shared memory, but even their simplest program couldn’t work. The customer shared their code and asked for help. <\/p>\n
The first process creates a named file mapping object backed by the page file. The second process opens the file mapping object by name, and then maps a view of that file mapping object. But the attempt to map the view always fails with To simplify presentation, error checking has been deleted. Instead, we will describe what happened with comments. <\/p>\n The customer added that the second process successfully opened the file mapping object, so presumably the handle does have read\/write access. Otherwise, the Study these programs and see if you can find the problem. <\/p>\n (Time passes.) <\/p>\n The problem is that the first parameter to However, it is a common¹ pattern that The numeric value of This is one of the nasty pitfalls of using plain old integers for flags. There’s no type safety: Integers look the same. <\/p>\n ¹ Note that the pattern is common but not not universal. The most notable exception is Mind those weakly-typed integers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1069,"featured_media":111744,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[25],"class_list":["post-94855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-oldnewthing","tag-code"],"acf":[],"blog_post_summary":" Mind those weakly-typed integers.<\/p>\n","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1069"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/111744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/oldnewthing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED<\/code>. The file mapping object was created by the first process as read\/write, and it was opened by the second process as read\/write. The two processes are running in the same session as the same user. And yet, the second process can’t get access. What’s wrong? <\/p>\n\n\/\/ code in italics is wrong\n\/\/\n\/\/ Program 1\n\n#include <windows.h>\n\nint main(int, char**)\n{\n \/\/ This succeeds with a non-null handle.\n HANDLE fileMapping = CreateFileMapping(\n INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, \/\/ backed by page file\n nullptr, \/\/ default security\n PAGE_READWRITE, \/\/ read-write access\n 0, \/\/ high part of size\n 65536, \/\/ low part of size\n L\"Local\\\\FileMappingTest\"); \/\/ name\n\n \/\/ This succeeds with a non-null pointer.\n void* view = MapViewOfFile(\n fileMapping,\n FILE_MAP_READ | FILE_MAP_WRITE, \/\/ desired access\n 0, 0, \/\/ file offset zero\n 0); \/\/ map the whole thing\n\n Sleep(5000); \/\/ pause to let user run second process\n\n UnmapViewOfFile(view);\n CloseHandle(fileMapping);\n \n return 0;\n}\n\n\/\/ Program 2\n#include <windows.h>\n\nint main(int, char**)\n{\n \/\/ This succeeds with a non-null handle.\n HANDLE fileMapping = OpenFileMapping(\n PAGE_READWRITE, \/\/ read-write access\n FALSE, \/\/ don't inherit this handle\n L\"Local\\\\FileMappingTest\"); \/\/ name\n\n \/\/ This fails with a null pointer.\n \/\/ GetLastError() returns ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED.\n void* view = MapViewOfFile(\n fileMapping,\n FILE_MAP_READ | FILE_MAP_WRITE, \/\/ desired access\n 0, 0, \/\/ file offset zero\n 0); \/\/ map the whole thing\n\n UnmapViewOfFile(view);\n CloseHandle(fileMapping);\n \n return 0;\n}<\/i>\n<\/pre>\nOpenFileMapping<\/code> would have failed with ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED<\/code> right away, rather than waiting for the MapViewOfFile<\/code>. <\/p>\nOpenFileMapping<\/code> is not supposed to be a PAGE_*<\/code> value. It’s supposed to be a FILE_MAP_*<\/code> value. This is easily overlooked because you are tempted to just do a copy\/paste of the CreateFileMapping<\/code> call’s parameters, and just delete the parameters related specifically to creation, like file size and security descriptor. <\/p>\nCreate<\/code> functions return a handle with full access and do not have an explicit access mask parameter, whereas Open<\/code> functions accept an access mask parameter that controls what level of access the returned handle has. <\/p>\nPAGE_READWRITE<\/code> is 4, which happens to match the numeric value of FILE_MAP_READ<\/code>. Therefore, the second program successfully opened the file mapping for read, but when it tried to map it for read and write, it got ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED<\/code> because it’s trying to obtain a mapping for writing, even though the mapping was opened only for read. <\/p>\nCreateFile<\/code>, which takes an explicit access mask. But if you think about it some more, CreateFile<\/code> is an open-like function, because if the file already exists, CreateFile<\/code> opens a handle to it, and it uses the requested access mask to evaluate whether your attempt to open that handle will succeed. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"