Thread: C Delete opened file

If you do 3 then 4, you are opening [1] the file twice and loosing the first handle. So that handle from createfile can only be closed by exiting the application itself - as the handle for it is lost.

[1] Ok, technically, creating, then opening - but that's two handles opened for the same file - print out the handle after you've called CreateFile in each case.

--
Mats

I'm pretty sure that in 32-bit Windows, a handle is a 32-bit Unsigned, so printf using %u should allow you to print a handle [actually, in general, a handle is actually the address of the kernel data structure representing the resource that the handle represents - makes it easy to access for the kernel].

Yes, createfile, whether you do CREATE_NEW or OPEN_EXISTING will "open" the file.

--
Mats

Originally Posted by BobS0327

Code:

			case 3 :
				//create option
				hFile = CreateFile(fname,               // file to be opened
					GENERIC_WRITE,      // open for writing
					FILE_SHARE_DELETE | FILE_SHARE_WRITE,   // share for writing					
                                        NULL,               // default security
					CREATE_NEW,         // create new file only
					FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL |FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ARCHIVE | SECURITY_IMPERSONATION,
					// normal file archive and impersonate client
					NULL);              // no attribute template

That will only allow the file to be opened by another (or the same) process for reading/writing - not allow someone to delete a file that is held open, and since the first handle is lost when the second step of the reproduction is done, it's not EVER going to be closed (unless we exit the app).

--
Mats

Originally Posted by zacs7

> If you can write to open files, it can even be a security risk.
That's what flockfile() is for... Bang supposed security risk gone (I can't even see how there would be one anyway...)

Oops. I misworded. I did not mean write to file, but actually delete or truncate an open file.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Oops. I misworded. I did not mean write to file, but actually delete or truncate an open file.

But you are not deleting or truncating an open file - you are just removing the directory entry for it. And you can only do that on files that are:
- Not locked.
- Available for you to modify/remove anyways.

It is not a security hole, because any files that affect the system security, assuming the system is intended to be secure anyways, are not accessible by non-trusted users. If trusted users are sabotaging the system they are trusted to use - then you have misapplied trust, and it usually is not something you are allowed to do according to the employment contract - that is, you get the sack if it's intentional, and a stern warning if it was a mistake.

--
Mats

But the point was that being able to delete a file that is open by a process can have bad effects. But it seems that no such thing can be done, but there was a claim that it could be, to which I responded it seemed strange.

Originally Posted by Elysia

But the point was that being able to delete a file that is open by a process can have bad effects. But it seems that no such thing can be done, but there was a claim that it could be, to which I responded it seemed strange.

It can be in the sense that the directory entry goes away - you can even create a new file to replace the previous file (e.g. copy a file onto the same name as an existing open one). But only if you have the right permissions and the file is not locked, of course.

Further, the file itself still stays on the disk (but no longer available to open again). It is different from Windows, where opening a file normally prevents all others from doing anything to that file - which means for example that you can't replace an existing executable with another executable or replace a script-file that some executable is using, without shutting down the executable.

--
Mats

Originally Posted by BobS0327

I think that's more relevent to his menuing system. For instance, if the file does not exist, then option 4 (open file) should not be available. Thus, requiring the user to select option 3 (create file). On the other hand, if the file exists, Option 4 (open file) should be available and Option 3 (create file) should not be available.

Yes, of course, a clever menu system that only allows you to do things that are meaningful is definitely a good idea. However, I think the OP didn't understand the API itself - which was the original problem - the file is opened twice by the application, and the handle from the first open (create) is lost, thus it can't be closed.

--
Mats