Skip to main content

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go!

CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object.

void SomeMethod()
{
   CComPtr siPtr;
   HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent);
   siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello");
}

Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr. As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference between pointers to normal C++ objects and pointers to COM objects; CComPtr and std::auto_ptr. When you assign one auto_ptr to another, the source is no more the owner of the object pointing to. The ownership is transferred to the destination. Whereas when a CComPtr is assigned to another, the reference count of the target COM object increases by one. And the two CComPtrs point to the same COM object. Changes made via one CComPtr object can be realized when the object is accessed via the other CComPtr. Release must be called on each CComPtr instance (to completely release the COM object). All fine, lets us see some code.

void SomeOtherMethod()
{
   CComPtr aPtr;
   InitAndPopulateObject(aPtr);

   int itemCount = 0;
   HRESULT hr = aPtr->GetCount(&itemCount);
   _ASSERTE(SUCCEEDED(hr));

   for (int i = 0; i < itemCount; ++i)
   {
      TCHAR szBuffer[128] = { 0 };
      sprintf_s(szBuffer, sizeof(szBuffer), "Key%ld", i);
      CComBSTR bstrKey(szBuffer);

      int iValue = 0;
      hr = aPtr->GetItem(bstrKey, &iValue);
      _ASSERTE(SUCCEEDED(hr));

      std::cout << bstrKey << " - " << iValue;
   }
}

void InitAndPopulateObject(CComPtr bPtr)
{
   HRESULT hr = bPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_Hashtable);
   
   _ASSERTE(SUCCEEDED(hr));

   for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
   {
      TCHAR szBuffer[128] = { 0 };
      sprintf_s(szBuffer, sizeof(szBuffer), "Key%ld", i);
      bPtr->Add(szBuffer, i);
   }
}

CComPtr saved a whole of code as explained above. But my application was always crashing in SomeOtherMethod when GetCount method is called on the COM object initialized one line above. So I am passing a CComPtr to InitAndPopulateObject, which is supposed to create me my COM object and fill it with some information I expect. Since I am passing a CComPtr, a return value is not needed. Looks fine, but the application crashed.

People are often misled with many things in programming mostly because they stick to the prime way of its use. CComPtr, in most cases, is used for creating a COM object, passed around across various sections in the code where AddRef and Release is done under the covers until the COM object dies a pleasant death. People tend to forget that the member in CComPtr (named poorly as p) is the one that is actually pointing to the COM object. So aPtr.p, whose value is 0x0000 (NULL), is passed by value and copied to bPtr.p. When the COM object is created using bPtr, it is bPtr.p ,which is assigned the COM object's address, say 0x23456789; whereas aPtr.p remains NULL even after InitAndPopulateObject returns. Hence the application was crashing because of null pointer access.

The problem might be obvious in the above few lines of clear code. It sure was very tough to locate and reason it in our huge code base.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Extension Methods - A Polished C++ Feature !!!

Extension Method is an excellent feature in C# 3.0. It is a mechanism by which new methods can be exposed from an existing type (interface or class) without directly adding the method to the type. Why do we need extension methods anyway ? Ok, that is the big story of lamba and LINQ. But from a conceptual standpoint, the extension methods establish a mechanism to extend the public interface of a type. The compiler is smart enough to make the method a part of the public interface of the type. Yeah, that is what it does, and the intellisense is very cool in making us believe that. It is cleaner and easier (for the library developers and for us programmers even) to add extra functionality (methods) not provided in the type. That is the intent. And we know that was exercised extravagantly in LINQ. The IEnumerable was extended with a whole lot set of methods to aid the LINQ design. Remember the Where, Select etc methods on IEnumerable. An example code snippet is worth a thousand ...
7 comments
Read more

Implementing COM OutOfProc Servers in C# .NET !!!

Had to implement our COM OOP Server project in .NET, and I found this solution from the internet after a great deal of search, but unfortunately the whole idea was ruled out, and we wrapped it as a .NET assembly. This is worth knowing. Step 1: Implement IClassFactory in a class in .NET. Use the following definition for IClassFactory. namespace COM { static class Guids { public const string IClassFactory = "00000001-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; public const string IUnknown = "00000000-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; } /// /// IClassFactory declaration /// [ComImport(), InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown), Guid(COM.Guids.IClassFactory)] internal interface IClassFactory { [PreserveSig] int CreateInstance(IntPtr pUnkOuter, ref Guid riid, out IntPtr ppvObject); [PreserveSig] int LockServer(bool fLock); } } Step 2: [DllImport("ole32.dll")] private static extern int CoR...
3 comments
Read more