Kas Ob.

Hi @Clément , Well, i couldn't let it go, as that loop is stuck in my head and it need fixing. Firstly and as a rule of thumb in this era always disable Nagle algorithm TCP_NODELAY, even if Windows says it will be disabled by default https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-setsockopt Secondly : That "While not done do " loop is confusing, what is the point of it ? it is acting as blocking or non blocking ? I mean what will happen if Send retuned an error? then you are spiking the CPU for 200ms with that Sleep(0) over erroneous/broken socket, also it is acting as blocking, then the logic sense is to replace it with more reliable approach. And here the suggestions : 1) Don't Send a zero length TCP (or UDP) packet !, yes it works for now, but trust me there is many firewalls with different flavors and smells, and they will block that as DoS, and it is rightfully they do. 2) Is your 0 length for saving traffic ? if so, then its make less sense, the the packet header for IPv4 and the TCP is over 44 bytes and most likely will be 56 bytes, so send something, if you are checking your own server then send the current time (current tick) and let the server returned it, thus you will have the round trip measured in ms, in my projects i do have similar ping but i do define the protocol as (2+1)*4 then (3+1)*4 bytes, client send its time and the last received server time, the server will add its current time and last received client time and return it, hence both will have live delay, specially for the server it can map the clients latencies. (+1 is for the ping and pong header and its option) 3) Why creating the socket each and every time, create once and reuse it, i always use the same one for the real data traffic, if you are pinging a HTTP server then perform a small request and let the server response with minimal response. 4) Before sending it always better to check for readiness for write, aka writability, so in your code above you can perform select() then and only then perform the send.

Have a look at this HeapMM https://github.com/maximmasiutin/FastCodeBenchmark/blob/master/MMv1_BV113/HeapMM.pas This is more than sufficient for your need case, only you must understand that the way you will use the DLL is similar to the way you intended to use the separated process, in other words : be careful ! there is no memory sharing for managed types ! So no string or arrays passing (among other managed types) between your exe and that dll ! Last thing, there is this directive in that HeapMM {$DEFINE USE_PROCESS_HEAP} This should be disabled {.$DEFINE USE_PROCESS_HEAP} By disabling it, the dll will be using its own heap and will free it so if it does leaks memory it will be erased on unloading the library. Also note this: if you are going to run multiple scripts concurrently then this will the DLL approach will be challenging, so either let them run and every now and then unload the library (FreeLibrary), or you can copy the DLL with different names and loading them separately, just food for thoughts. ps: understanding how memory manager works is nice to know, the the heap one is the most minimalistic form for a memory manager.

Yes, this is the only way, also you can make it a DLL, only make sure to not use a shared memory memory manager with the exe. Use the OS heap API as local memory manager.

No, will not. Because : 1) for 32 bit : it will stay on 32 bit and will not hit the signed not signed range anyway, hence it will still working. 2) for 64 bit: well same as above ! Now back to this in whole You are hitting different village here, what are you talking about or referring to, are stuff belongs to runtime pointer operation, at run time calculated : 1) These bug are exposed by FastMM with high memory allocation, there is a setting in FastMM4Options.inc called AlwaysAllocateTopDown, this will catch or at least help in catching such bugs. 2) No matter what your code is doing with pointers the code will stay at its place and it is where the image had being loaded, (not talking about runtime generated code like JIT or any), we are talking about default a process started by executing an exe, and we assuming the compiler is doing right job, the EIP will not leave the designated as execution pages when the image had being loaded by the OS, now if we moved these pages up by address, meaning we pushed the loading address 100mb or $F000000, will it fail ? if there is relocation table then it will not fail, if there is no relocation table, then the OS will revert to the default which most likely $400000 and call it a day. ASLR merely load the image at different places as i said, and here i want to list what it does exactly for last time 1) Load the executable binary/image at random address, in the old days it was always the same and it comes form the PE. 2) Make the stack allocation at random, without it and like the old age, the stack like for the main thread was always at the same address, this is very observable even now with a debugged process, the stack position between two runs, and that because (3) : 3) Make memory allocation at random, this is second most important change as a process calls VirtualAlloc at beginning of its start without ASLR enabled most likely will have the same address, ASLR will prevent that. Now, in both case id a DLL does support ASLR or not it will comply with relocation table to be loadable, duh, and this is most of the ASLR critical point, the rest is : it does expect a memory allocation or a position at the stack to be the same every time, i never saw a Delphi generated code have that, hence all Delphi DLLs are ASLR ready ! , and they will work fine. For EXE it might be different but only for the image loading addresses, but it will also be ready for the randomization of the stack and allocations. This is a nice article about ASLR when it failed to be ASLR https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/when-aslr-is-not-really-aslr-the-case-of-incorrect-assumptions-and-bad-defaults/

Well, this need some explanation. 1) ASLR has nothing to do with code, well written or bad one. 2) ASLR is merely randomization of system allocation memory for this process, so no address can be guessed per execution. 3) Badly written code can violate ASLR, but this is not bad code, it is code that runs out side the control of the compiler, aka override it with fixed address, such code will fail, ASLR in fact being made for this case, now if the code of the executable is abusing the addressing scheme then it will fail, beyond that, only malicious and blindly (or remotely) injected code will fail to run as intended, because there is known addresses before hand. 4) Windows executables should support ASLR by simply have right and well defined relocation table in PE. 5) By default all DLLs should and must be ASLR compatible because by definition and form the beginning of Windows OS and its API, the DLL loading address can't be known before hand, and can't be fixed, yet for many years and many versions, Windows loaded specific DLLs to the same addresses. 6) for EXE to support ASLR it must have Relocation Table https://0xrick.github.io/win-internals/pe7/ without it it will fail if ASLR is enforced by the OS, this is historical problem as for long time the loading address for EXE on windows was $400000 by default so many linker ( and compiler) didn't follow the rules and generated right relocation table, or even worse, there is many tools to minimize your EXE size that does strip that table rendering the EXE not ASLR compatible. 7) to my knowledge Delphi generated binaries relocation table was correct and right and was there, and should be a problem unless there is regression somewhere. Again ASLR compatibility is Linker responsibility, but yet the compiler could generate code that confuses the linker and make it fail to build right relocation table. ps: Relocation table in short words, it is a table that the system will parse and patch (change addresses) after (and while) loading the PE image sections into the memory based on the relative addresses in that table to the addresses that OS picked, and that before giving the new process the execution in case of EXE, and while blocking LoadLibrary and before calling DllMain.

Yes, right on the point. This is very confusing, as there is anonymous methods and there is anonymous procedure/function. These are different things, methods are aware of self and it is a must to have, while the latter don't have self.

I think i can pin point it ! Just remembered another situation when the project wasn't using specific 3rd party library library, namely AlphaSkins and acPng dcu kept popping in compiled while it wasn't referenced in that project, the project wasn't even using AlphaSkins but the standard VCL TImage, this happen on my IDE and my PC not the client (owner of the source), i solved it by simply disabling or removing that package form the IDE when working on that project.

I witnessed such behavior, in few times was not a pas unit but in dcu file referring to some ghost unit that i don't have reference in the code. And it was a removed referenced unit after refactoring, so searching for the name of needed unit will return no result, while the dcu still having the reference. Try to rename the folders with your DCU's, also when it dcu tracking then Process Monitor will show some extra information about this.

Rename that unit, then build.

As i said because it failed so many times to guarantee better and safer code practice, as we read so many times, so is it the best?, yeah it is,.. is it suggest to continue to be used in most critical software ? here comes the answer : NO , so is there better solution ? Yes and they calling to skip it to something better and more safer, not ... again not because it can't deliver, but there is a problem with the human factor and they gave up on fixing it. Don't take my opinion on the subject, and think about this : Can all the big companies wrong as they call to drop the language and switch to something else ? And please remember that : what ever you might suggest or even imagine, is already had been done and tried with C/C++ and still failed again and again. Rust doesn't have that much of unique as language except key features which limit the developer to design as he might imagine or wish, and involve the compiler even more, for Delphi (though) this might trigger many here, smart pointer will be wrong direction and will not solve anything, not just because Embarcadero might fail to deliver, or waste of time and resources, but because with all the libraries in C/C++ and still failing, so why repeat the tested and expect different result, please don't take this as debate for now about this subject, it is what one can deduce from what is happening now. Delphi will be many folds safer with removing or limiting the memory handling by code and give that to the compiler, same as Rust, if there is no shuffling then we don't need smart pointer or stupid ones, it is so simple, will this hinder our coding design, may be it will, but most likely it only need more code, though i doubt it will be longer than it is now, in all cases it will ensure better design and structure, a hardened and sound one. Imagine one directive at the top of the unit Delphi file that make all the variables and fields initialized and compiler and compile time managed, the compiler will stop you until fix them all, breaking zero backward code (legacy), and ensure the future is brighter and better, and the transition will be easier with compiler error and warning, and no smart pointers with stupid code that trying to retrieve few milliseconds in performance while different approach could be faster at the root.

Fair and with in your right, but let me ask you a simple question When you last time saw Delphi/Pascal code where a function had one letter name like f or g ?... Yesterday i watched this I believe i pasted the link as Stefan put it in the German forum The talk is great and very valuable, and if anyone is not familiar with lecture then know that this dude wrote C++ specification for breakfast, and here it comes write the guide lines for safety, yet when i watched it i saw that he himself with his examples violate a rule that always use expressive naming, and yes there was f and g, this comes from math, and the obsession of C++ developer with math to look cool, everyone looks to Bjarne and his talks and books, yet the beginners will scratch these examples in their brains forever with one letter function as name. Look at this "New Rules" titled in 2020 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/new-safety-rules-in-c-core-check/ I think every C and C++ compiler out there does warn about default for a switch, yet that blog post deemed it a must to remind everyone with it, in Rust the code will not compile and C and C++ and in %90 no one will see it because there 458648567 another warning, some of these warnings makes sense but most of them don't, C and C++ are cursed with arrogance and stubbornness and its culture is beyond control, (my opinion) Rollo62 all what i am saying is even with all of this power of C++, it fails be the best language for long term security and safety, they (the most invested companies and teams and i trust they have better insight and view on this subject ) said C/C++ will not cut it and Rust it is. they decided to burn the tower and throw the power tools for better language, that (again) doesn't bring any thing new, on the contrary only remove the ability to use many C++ features, and evidently they see it as success story.

One more thing, if it was easy to define and put finger on memory safety issues in C++, then trust me, no one would have discussed memory safety at this scope and this range of popularity. Each projects and each company has its own strict guide lines for safety and integrity of code, yet it is so clear that they are still short and still fail. In movies they say the villain should be masterful without any mistakes every time, while the good detective need to be lucky once. With security this rule is reversed the good guy should not make a simple mistake in thousands of code, and the villain need to be lucky to found one mistake. Delphi/Pascal is easier to produce memory safe code and executables.

Its not that only. See, we the Delphi programmers used to do things in specific way, this out of the structure of the language of Pascal and by tradition or best practices, it goes like (as example ) automatically without thinking to put try..finally then call free, C++ there is none like this, but i am not saying C++ is incapable of, on contrary it can do more things because it is more powerful, but C++ developers doesn't have the discipline of Pascal's, this is exactly why all these big companies with their top tier developer keep doing or falling with the same traps again and again. When these big companies suggest to switch to different language like Rust not out of powerful of Rust or the lack of the tools in C++, on the contrary they reached to a conclusion that too much power is simply harmful, more limited tools are better fit and more secure. When you say Delphi is not memory safe, yes it is, just like any other language, yet the guide lines for Pascal and Delphi are way simpler and clearer than C++ to produce memory safe code (either bugs or vulnerability) , Rust is similar, its guide lines are harder to break as they incorporated within the language syntax itself. In Delphi if you leave the Overflow Check at on all the time, then you really had to be making big mistakes to breach memory safety for something like accessing index memory or handling managed types, these managed types specially arrays and strings are managed by the compiler in very nice way, in C++ there is hundreds of implementation of such arrays and strings, and they all will depends on some implementation, yet while they are completely safe at the same type coming form the same library, they are useless when it comes to interact with different library or the OS or whatever and here comes the problems of casting and unsafe converting.

Also SHA3, SHA512 are faster by at least %50 than SHA256.

If C++ compiler allocated all vars upfront and didn't use PUSH/POP inside any scope of code then they will be closer.