How to get currently running application without using a system process?
It depends on what you look for. If you are interested in the assembly that is calling you,then you can use GetCallingAssembly. You could also use GetExecutingAssembly.
Slight misconception here. On any given machine there can be multiple current running process. Consider the case where the machine has multiple CPU's. It's possible, and in fact likely, that each CPU will have at least a separate thread running on it. There is a very good chance that at any given time the number of processes currently running on the machine will be close to the number of processors on the system.
In the case of a single processor the act of getting the current running process is redundant. It will simply be your application.
If you want to investigate processes running on the current machine without using the Process class, you can PInvoke into the Process32First and Process32Next system calls.
If you're using .NET, whatever mechanism you end up using, make sure that you pay attention to .NET code access security. Read MSDN documentation to see if the class, method(s) you're using requires full-trust or not. This may be an issue if your app is supposed to run in partial trust or less privileged trust environment.
System.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcesses("MACHINEHAME")
Related
The title of my question might already give away the fact that I'm not sure about what I want, as it might not make sense.
For a project I want to be able to run executables within my application, while redirecting their standard in and out so that my application can communicate with them through those streams.
At the same time, I do not want to allow these executables to perform certain actions like use the network, or read/write outside of their own working directory (basically I only want to allow them to write and read from the standard in and out).
I read on different places on the internet that these permissions can be set with PermissionStates when creating an AppDomain in which you can then execute the executables. However, I did not find a way to then communicate with the executables through their standard in and out, which is essential. I can however do this when starting a new Process (Process.Start()), though then I cannot set boundaries as to what the executable is allowed to do.
My intuition tells me I should somehow execute the Process inside the AppDomain, so that the process kind of 'runs' in the domain, though I cannot see a way to directly do that.
A colleague of mine accomplished this by creating a proxy-application, which basically is another executable in which the AppDomain is created, in which the actual executable is executed. The proxy-application is then started by a Process in the main application. I think this is a cool idea, though I feel like I shouldn't need this step.
I could add some code containing what I've done so far creating a process and appdomain, though the question is pretty long already. I'll add it if you want me to.
The "proxy" application sounds like a very reasonable approach (given that you only ever want to run .NET assemblies).
You get the isolation of different processes which allows you to communicate via stdin/stdout and gives the additional robustness that the untrusted executable cannot crash your main application (which it could if it was running in an AppDomain inside your main application's process.
The proxy application would then setup a restricted AppDomain and execute the sandboxed code, similar to the approach described here:
How to: Run Partially Trusted Code in a Sandbox
In addition, you can make use of operation system level mechansims to reduce the attack surface of a process. This can be achieved e.g. by starting the proxy process with lowest integrity which removes write access to most resources (e.g. allow writing files only in AppData\LocalLow). See here for an example.
Of course, you need to consider whether this level of sandboxing is sufficient for you. Sandboxing, in general, is hard, and the level of isolation always will be to a certain degree only.
On Windows/.NET, a named Mutex can be used to synchronise multiple processes. Unfortunately, Mono doesn't quite support this on Linux. Their release notes say that Linux doesn't support this Windows feature and it would be unreliable to emulate it. It seems best to avoid the proposed hack to enable it anyway.
So what are suggested alternatives? I need to make my program safe to run concurrently, only a short section of it needs to be synchronised with other instances.
The application eventually needs to be deployed on Ubuntu Linux with Mono 2.10, but for testing, it would be highly appreciated if it also works on Windows 7 with .NET 4.
UPDATE:
Try to look at http://aakinshin.net/en/blog/dotnet/namedmutex-on-mono/
OLD:
Mono does not support any Windows-native IPC.
So you do not have for example Named Pipes, or Mutexes.
But to sync threads in the same process you can use Monitor class explicitly (it also used for lock).
To simply notify another process you can try to use Unix Domain Sockets.
Check UnixEndPoint class for that. One of benefits you can specify name for it (like for named semaphore for example).
Also you can try to emulate Mutex using own file. Try to get exclusive access to specific own file. While you have that access - you are in critical section.
I would like to be able to do an "inplace" update with my program. Basically, I want to be able to login remotely where the software is deployed, install it while other users are still using it (in a thin client way), and it update their program.
Is this possible without too much of a hassle? I've looked into clickonce technology, but I don't think that's really what I'm looking for.
What about the way firefox does it's updates? Just waits for you to restart the program, and notifies you when it's been updated.
UPDATE: I'm not remoting into the users' PC. This program is ran on a server, and I remote in and update it, the users run it directly off the server through remote access.
ClickOnce won't work because it requires a webserver.
I had some example code that I can't find right now but you can do something similar to Firefox with the System.Deployment.Application namespace.
If you use the ApplicationDeployment class, you should be able to do what you want.
From MSDN, this class...
Supports updates of the current deployment programmatically, and handles on-demand downloading of files.
Consider the MS APIs with BITS, just using bitsadmin.exe in a script or the Windows Update Services.
Some questions:
Are the users running the software locally, but the files are located on a networked share on your server?
Are they remoting into the same server you want to remote into, and execute it there?
If 2. are they executing the files where they are placed on the server, or are they copying them down to a "private folder"?
If you cannot change the location of the files, and everyone is remoting in, and everyone is executing the files in-place, then you have a problem. As long as even 1 user is running the program, the files will be locked. You can only update the files once everyone is out.
If, on the other hand, the users are able to run their own private copy of the files, then I would set up a system where you have a central folder with the latest version of the files, and when a user starts his program, it checks if the central folder has newer versions than the user is about to execute. If it does, copy the new version down first.
Or, if that will take too long, and the user will get impatient (what, huh, users getting impatient?), then having the program check the versions after startup, and remind the user to exit would work instead. In this case, the program would set a flag that upon next startup would do the copying, only now the user is aware of it happening.
The copying part would easily be handled by either having a separate executable that does the actual copying, and executing that instead, or the program could copy itself temporarily to another location and run that copy with parameters that says "update the original files".
While you can design your code to modify itself (maybe not in C#?), this is generally a bad idea. This means that you must restart something to get the update. (In Linux you are able to replace files that are in use, however an update does not happen until the new data is loaded into memory i.e. application restart)
The strategy used by Firefox (never actually looked into it) is storing the updated executable in a different file which is checked for when program starts to load. This allows the program to overwrite the program with the update before the resource is locked by the OS. You can also design you program more modular so that portions of it can be "restarted" without requiring a restart of the entire program.
How you actually do this is probably provided by the links given by others.
Edit:: In light of a response given to Lasse V. Karlsen
You can have your main program looking for the latest version of the program to load (This program wouldn't be able to get updates without everyone out). You then can remove older versions once people are no longer using it. Depending on how frequent people restart their program you may end up with a number of older programs versions.
ClickOnce and Silverlight (Out of browser) both support your scenario, if we talk about upgrades. Remote login to your users machine? Nope. And no, Firefox doesn't do that either as far as I can tell..
Please double-check both methods and add them to your question, explaining why they might not do what you need. Otherwise it's hard to move on and suggest better alternatives.
Edit: This "I just updated, please restart" thing you seem to like is one method call for Silverlight applications running outside of the browser. At this point I'm fairly certain that this might be the way to go for you.
ClickOnce doesn't require a webserver, it will let you publish updates while users are running the software. You can code your app to check for new update every few minutes and prompt the user to restart the app if a new version is found which will then take them through the upgrade process.
Another option is a Silverlight OOB application, but this would be more work if your app is already built as WinForms/WPF client app.
Various deployment/update scenarios (for .NET applications) are discussed with there pros and cons in Microsoft's Smart Client Architecture and Design Guide. Though a little bit old I find that most still holds today, as it is describing rather the basic architectural principles than technical details. There is a PDF version, but you find it online as well:
Deploying and Updating Smart Client Applications
Is this possible without too much of a hassle?
Considering the concurrency issues with thin clients and the complexity of Windows installations, yes hot updates will be a hassel without doing it the way the system demands.
I would like to provide a large number of inhouse .net applications with a lightweight way to announce that they are being used. My goal is to keep track of which users might benefit from support check-ins and/or reminders to upgrade.
This is on an inhouse network. There is definitely IP connectivity among all the machines, and probably UDP. (But probably not multicast.)
Writing to a known inhouse share or loading a known URL would be possibilities, but I would like to minimize the impact on the application itself as completely as possible, even at the expense of reliability. So I would rather not risk a timeout (for example if I'm accessing some centralized resource and it has disappeared), and ideally I would rather not launch a worker thread either.
It would also be nice to permit multiple listeners, which is another reason I am thinking about broadcasting rather than invoking a service.
Is there some kind of fire-and-forget broadcast mechanism I could use safely and effectively for this?
There are certainly many options for this, but one that is very easy to implement and meets your criteria is an Asynchronous Web Service call.
This does not require you to start a worker thread (the Framework will do that behind the scenes). Rather than use one of the options outlined in that link to fetch the result, simply ignore the result since it is meaningless to the calling app.
I did something similar, though not exactly a "braodcast"
I have an in house tool several non-techies in the company use. I have it check a network share for a specific EXE (the same EXE you would download if you wanted to use it) and compares the version # of that file with the executing assembly. If the one on the network is newer, alert the user to download the new one.
A lot simpler than trying to set up an auto updater for something that will only be used within the same building as me.
If upgrading is not an issue (i.e. there are no cases where using the old version is better), you can do what I did with something similar:
The application that people actually launch is an updater program, it checks the file version and timestamp on a network share and if a newer version exists, copies it to the program directory. It then runs the program (whether it was updated or not).
var current = new FileInfo(local);
var latest = new FileInfo(remote);
if (!current.Exists)
latest.CopyTo(local);
var currentVersion = FileVersionInfo.GetVersionInfo(local);
var latestVersion = FileVersionInfo.GetVersionInfo(remote);
if (latest.CreationTime > current.CreationTime || latestVersion.FileVersion != currentVersion.FileVersion)
latest.CopyTo(local, true);
Process.Start(local)
I also have the program itself check to see if the updater needs updating (as the updater can't update itself due to file locks)
After some experimentation, I have been getting good results using Win32 mailslots.
There is no official managed wrapper, but the functions are simple to use via PInvoke, as demonstrated in examples like this one.
Using a 'domain' mailslot provides a true broadcast mechanism, permitting multiple listeners and no requirement for a well-known server.
I have an app that, when launched, checks for duplicate processes of itself.
That part I have right - but what I need is to check a state variable in the original running process in order to run some logic.
So: how do I make a variable (e.g. bool) available publicly to other applications so they can query it?
There are a bunch of ways to do this. A very primative way would be to read/write from a file. The old win32 way would be to use PostMessage. The more .NET way would be to use remoting or WCF and Named Pipes.
.NET 4 is also getting support for Memory Mapped files.
Here is a pretty thorough looking artcile describing a few different approaches including support for Memory Mapped files outside of .NET 4
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/csthreadmsg.aspx
The easiest: Create a file, and write something in it.
More advanced, and when done correctly more robust, is using WCF, you use named pipes to setup some communication channel on the local computer only.
If you're using a Mutex to check whether another process is running (you should be) you could use another Mutex whose locked state would be the boolean flag you're looking.
The standard way of doing this is to use the Windows API to create and lock a mutex. The first app to open will create and lock the mutex. Any subsequent executions of the app will not be able to get it and can then shutdown.