I tried to generate code for a device changing the implementation type to SharedLibrary and renaming the Entry Point to Device_Name.so. I was able to generate and build, but in main.cpp it kept a main function not a make_component to be called by ComponentHost. the device constructors deals with arguments that ComponentHost doesn't, like the Device Manager IOR. I believe this functionality extension implies changing the source code of ComponenHost. Is it part of REDHAWK roadmap? any comments on how can I make it work?
So are you trying to use the shared process space within a node to communicate between devices and services? Because I don't believe that there is tooling specifically for this yet, but I think there is a way to do this. Just to be clear I haven't tried this, but based on the test used by the bulkio ports to determine local vs remote transport usage, I think this will work.
If you look at the persona pattern, you'll see that there is a Programmable Device which is responsible for loading Persona Devices. Most of the details for this aren't necessary for what you're trying to do, but the pattern should be helpful. To accomplish communication between Devices using shared memory, you could generate a Programmable device whose sole purpose is to forward parameters from the DeviceManager to the Personas. The Personas would then act as your normal Devices normally do, just launched in the same process space as one another.
The code generators for the Programmable and Persona Devices are not yet integrated into the IDE, so you'll have to create a new Device project in eclipse for each Device you want (so that you'll have the spd files). Be sure to add the appropriate AggregateDevice interface to your Devices. This let's the framework know that multiple devices can technically be considered one entity, but you can also individually communicate with each. Also make sure that the Programmable is an Executable Device, since it needs to launch the Persona Devices. Then, from the command line, you can run redhawk-codegen - - pgdevice </path/to/programmable/spd> to generate a Programmable Device, and redhawk-codegen - - persona </path/to/persona/spd> to generate your Persona Device(s).
Once all of this is done, you'll notice the main function for your Programmable launches the Device like you described in your question. However, the main function for the Personas has code to launch the Device as either a standalone Device or as simply an object in its own thread.
This should allow the bulkio ports of the Programmable and Personas to communicate with each other via shared memory. Obviously this will break down if you attempt to push data out of the process, at least until someone adds interprocess shared memory via something like shm. Not sure if that's on the road map, but it would certainly be neat.
Update: It appears that interprocess shared memory was added in RH 2.1.2, so you should be able to communicate between collocated Devices, Services, and Components using that mechanism. This renders the above unnecessary, but I'm going to leave it for earlier versions of RH.
Let me know if you have any questions!
As of RH 2.1.2, the default behavior for Devices/Services/Components whose user code uses redhawk::buffer for the data memory allocator and the stream API for interaction with the bulkio port is to use a shared memory transport between C++ entities that are running in different processes
Related
Basically, i'm trying to figure out if you can add a software to run alongside an already installed POSs, that can also access the barcode scanner?
Does it depend on whom the POSs has been installed with?
Please help!
I'm pretty new in this area, but I know that UPOS has the concept of Sharable Devices, multiple apps can use the device in this case.
Some devices are sharable devices. An example is the keylock. A sharable device allows multiple Control instances to call its methods and access its properties. Also, it may deliver its events to multiple Controls. A sharable device may still limit access to some methods or properties to the Control that has claimed it, or it may deliver some events only to the Control that has claimed it.
https://www.omg.org/retail/unified-pos.htm
#Rachel McConnell,
It is certainly possible for two applications to use the barcode scanner if neither application holds an exclusive claim on the device when it is not actively using the hardware, however many POS applications assume they are the only application using the hardware.
If both applications are using Windows.Devices.PointofService, there is a negotiation process built into the platform that requires the application with an active claim to respond with a retain() to keep the claim if a second application requests a claim. If the first application does not respond with a retain() in a matter of seconds, the claim is revoked and given to the second application. I do not believe other UnifiedPOS implementations provide similar capabilities.
For more information, see: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/devices-sensors/pos-basics-claim
Hope this helps
Terry Warwick, Microsoft
I recently purchased Micro:Bit. I've seen that micro-python and bluetooth cannot be used at the same time due to memory capacity.
Does anyone know if I would be able to build a decent application using the javascript block programming?
The app basically has to do the following:
Read data from acceleretometer.
Acumulate some accelerometer data.
Send the information to another device connected via bluetooth.
Yes, you should be able to write a program for the microbit that does this. the official documentation describes the services that are available. I also found an example which suggests that there is an app which you can use at the phone end if that's relevant to your application.
The micropython restriction is a combination of the BLE protocol stack requiring 12 kB of RAM, and python being interpreted (so having a high RAM requirement).
You can chose the block version or test javascript - and should be able to write reasonably complex programs (even if the text entry might be best done in an editor). As a final fall-back, you can fall back on C/C++ using the microbit DAL (which seems to be built on top of the mbed offline toolchain).
I am trying to write a network device driver for Linux. The device that I have has an API available that allows me to access all of the features I need through a shared object that exists in userspace.
I want to write a network driver such that I can make the device show up as a CAN interface. However, in order to interact with the device I need to use a specific shared object that exists in userspace.
The reason that I need a network device driver is to expose a CAN Interface that can be interacted with via the SocketCAN utilities.
Is there a way that I can write a network device driver in userspace? Or what would the best way for me to architect a solution?
Tl;Dr
Need to write a device driver for a device which can only be interacted with from userspace via a supplied shared object which exposes the API. I need the device to show up as a network interface in order to utilize the SocketCAN utilities and other applications that communicate with CAN interfaces in Linux.
What are my options here? What can I do?
Thanks!
So you are saying that there is no driver for your network device in kernel at all, and it can be only accessed via some user-space library? In that case shared library you mentioned should be communicating with your network device by memory mapping your /dev/mem file, in order to be able to read/write to hardware registers. Or perhaps by using some UIO.
So your driver should be also developed in user-space then... Then the actual question you should ask is how to use kernel CAN API from user-space? And is it possible at all in the first place? For answers I guess you should look at Documentation/networking/can.txt. And if the answer is "no" (means you can't expose CAN interface from user-space), then you should develop also some kernel driver which would interact with your user-space part, exposing CAN interface.
In ideal world the whole driver architecture would look like this:
But you need to use some (proprietary, if I understand correctly) shared library API to interact with your device. So I propose you to use next driver architecture, which depicted on the image below:
blue color stands for parts that need to be developed
magenta is for already existing code
In a nutshell, your app and driver both make a shim between SocketCAN API and shared library API.
So you need to develop 2 components:
Driver (on kernel side). It's in charge of:
talking to SocketCAN utilities
talking to your user-space application
Application (in user-space); it's probably should be a daemon, as it's gonna be running constantly. It's in charge of:
talking to shared library
talking to your driver
The last question remains is which kernel API to use to interact between your kernel space driver and user-space application (marked as IPC on picture). It strictly depends on which kind of data you are going to send between two, and how much of data you will want to send, and which way of sending is most appropriate for your task. It may also depend on your shared library API: you probably don't want to spend much of CPU time to convert messages format (as you already have triple context switching with this driver architecture, which is not really nice for performance). So it's probably should be something packet-oriented, like Netlink.
Next reading can be useful to figure out which IPC to use:
Kernel Space - User Space Interfaces
Linux kernel interfaces
Sorry for the rather long post.
I need some input regarding a project that I am going to undertake.
I am trying to make an application that collects kernel debugging information from a guest Linux OS, located inside a VmWare Virtual Machine, and send them to a host OS efficiently.
So far, I have found a similar project, but written for Windows[1].
The author of the project wrote a DLL that is loaded into memory, and replaces the implementation of the KdSendPacket and KdReceivePacket functions, to use the VmWare GuestRpc[2] mechanism, instead of the slow serial port.
The data are then send to a debugging application on the host(Kd or WinDbg) trough a named pipe.
The author claims that there is a speed-up up to 45%, by avoiding the serial port transmission.
I am trying to achieve something similar ,but for Linux, and try to make the debugging process a little faster, than using the serial port.
My concrete questions are :
Do any similar applications exist?
I didn't manage to find any.
Would such an application be worth it ,comparing its functionality to netconsole[3], for example?
What method of intercepting printk messages would you suggest ?
Is there an equivalent of KdSendPacket/KdReceivePacket on Linux ?
[1]. http://virtualkd.sysprogs.org/dox/operation.html
[2]. http://articles.sysprogs.org/kdvmware/guestrpc.shtml
[3]. http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/netconsole.txt
Using the serial port is really suboptimal.. even the (virtual) network would be preferable to that, but getting back to host-guest IPC channels, VMware's VMCI comes to mind.
many approaches can use to achieve your goal, below methods can be applied if network is connected:
use syslog service and transfer log though network to your server:
syslogd, syslogng seems support sending log to a log server with some filter critiera.
directly call tcp/udp socket functions in your kernel module to sends your collected data back to server.
other approaches, you may write application on host machine that calls hypervisor's share memory access function to read the memory buffer of your kernel module. However, the xen/kvm hypervisor both support these apis and i am not sure about weather vmware have this kind of library.
I spent the last days reading through man pages, documentations and anything else google brought up, but I suppose I'm even more confused now than I was at the beginning.
Here is what I want to do: I want to send and receive data packets with my own layer 3-x protocol(s) via a wireless interface (802.11) on Linux systems with C/C++.
So far, so good. I do not require beacons, association or any AP/SSID related stuff. However, for data transmissions I'd like the MAC layer to behave "as usual", meaning unicast packets are ACK'd, retransmissions, backoff etc. I'd also like to enjoy the extended QoS capabilites (802.11e with 4 queues and different access categories). Promiscuous mode on the other hand is not a concern, I require only broadcast packets and packets sent to the specific station.
What would be the right way to go about it? Most of the documentation out there on raw socket access seems to be focused on network sniffing and that does not help. I've been playing around with the monitor mode for some time now, but from what I've read so far, received packets are not ACK'd in monitor mode etc.
Without monitor mode, what would be the alternative? Using ad hoc mode and unix raw sockets? Or do I have to fiddle around with the drivers?
I'm not looking for a complete solution, just some good ideas, where to start. I read through the man pages for socket(2), socket(7) and packet(7) but that did not help concerning the behaviour of the MAC layer in different modes.
Thanks in advance.
802.11 is layer 2 (and 1) protocol specification. It was designed in a way, which allows higher-layer protocols to treat it as Ethernet network. Addressing and behaviour is generally the same. So for a layer 3 protocol you should not be concerned about 802.11 at all and write your code as if you were expecting it to run on Ethernet network.
To make it work you should first connect to a wireless network of some sort (which is conceptually equal to plugging a wire into a Ethernet card). Here you may choose ad-hoc (aka IBSS) or infrastructural (aka BSS) network (or PBSS once 802.11ad is approved ;).
Operating cards without any sort of association with network (just spitting out packets on air) is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. Most importantly it's very hardware dependent and unreliable. You can still do it using RF mon (AKA monitor mode) interface on one side and packet injection (using radiotap header) on the other but I don't recommend that. Even if you have a set of identical cards you'll most likely encounter hard to explain and random behaviour at some point. 802.11 NICs are just not designed for this kind of operation and keep different mount of state inside firmware (read about FullMAC vs. SoftMAC cards). Even SoftMAC cards differ significantly. For example theoretically in monitor mode, as you said, card should not ACK received packets. There are cards though that will ACK received frame anyway, because they base their decision exclusively on the fact that said frame is addressed to them. Some cards may even try to ACK all frames they see. Similar thing will happen with retransmissions: some cards will send injected packet only once (that's how it should work). In other NICs, retransmissions are handled by hardware (and firmware) and driver cannot turn it off, so you will get automatic retransmission even with injected data.
Sticking with layer 3 and using existing modes (like ad hoc), will give you all capabilities you want and more (QoS etc.). Ethernet frame that you send to interface will be "translated" by the kernel to 802.11 format with QoS mapping etc.
If you want to find out about MAC behaviour in various modes you'll have to either read the mac80211 code or 802.11 standard itself. http://linuxwireless.org wiki my help you with a few things, but kernel hackers are usually to busy to write documentation other than comments in the code ;)
L3 protocol implementation itself can be also done either in kernel or user mode (using raw sockets). As usual kernel-side will be harder to do, but more powerful.
Because you want to create own network layer protocol (replacement for IP), the keyword is: "raw ethernet socket". So ignore "Raw IP socket" stuff.
This is where to start:
int sockfd = socket( PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(XXX) );
Correct man page is: packet(7).
Find more information by googling with the keyword.
One quite complete example here.
Edit: The link to the example seems to be currently broken: another examples
Probably you want something like libpcap.
Libpcap allows you to read/inject raw packets from/into a network interface.
First, there’s something you should be aware of when trying to transmit raw 802.12 frames- the device driver must support packet injection.
You mentioned monitor mode, which is at a high level the rx equivalent of the injection capability- which is not a “mode”, jist a capability/feature. I say this because some 892.11 device drivers on Linux either:
Support monitor mode and frame injection
Support monitor mode and not frame injection
Support neither
I don’t know any straightforward way to check if the driver supports frame injection aside from attempting frame injection and sniffing the air on another device to confirm it was seen.
Monitor mode is usually easy to check by using sudo wlan0 set monitor and seeing what the return code and/or output is.
It’s been a few years since I’ve worked on this but at the time, very few devices supported monitor mode and frame injection “out of the box”. Many only supported monitor mode with a modified version of the vendor or kernel driver
You’ll want to make sure your device has a driver available that fully supports both. This sort of task (frame monitoring and injection) is common for Penetration Testers who tend to use Kali Linux, which is really just an Ubuntu distribution with a bunch of “hacking” tools and (modified) 802.11 device drivers preloaded and in its repositories. You can often save time finding a well supported card by using a search engine to find the device and driver recommended for Kali users
I’m bringing this monitor/injection capability up explicitly because when I first worked on a similar project a few years ago, I needed to use a patched version of the official kernel driver to support monitor mode- it was an rtl8812au chipset. At that time, I made an incorrect assumption that monitor mode support in the driver implied full injection support. I spent 2 days banging my head against the wall, convinced my frames weren’t built correctly in my application, causing no frames to leave the card. Turned out I needed a more recent branch of the driver I was using to get the full injection support. This driver in particular supports both monitor mode and frame injection now. The most frustrating thing about diagnosing that problem was that I did not receive any errors from system calls or in kernel messages while trying to transmit the frames- they were just being silently discarded somewhere, presumably in the driver
To your main question about how to do this- the answer is almost certainly libpcap if you’re writing your application in C/C++ as libpcap provides not only packet capture APIs but also packet injection APIs
If you do it in Python, scapy is an excellent option. The benefit of Python/scapy is that
Python code is much quicker to write than C
scapy provides a significant amount of classes that you can use to intuitively create a frame layer by layer
Because the layers are implemented as classes, you can also extend and “register” existing classes to make certain frames easier to create (or parse when received)
You can do this in straight C using the UNIX sockets API with raw sockets directly- but you’ll have to deal with things that libpcap exists to abstract from you- like underlying system calls that may be required when doing raw frame transmission, aside from the standard socket(), send(), recv() calls. I’m speculating that there are a handful of ioctl calls you may need at the least, specific to the kernel 802.11x subsystem/framework- and these ioctl() calls and their values may not be completely portable across different major kernel versions. I’ll admit I ended up not using the pure C (without libpcap) approach, so I’m not 100% sure about this potential problem. It’s something you should look more into if you plan to do it without libpcap. I don’t recommend it unless you have a really good reason to
It sounds like you are getting the media and transport layers mixed up.
802.11 is what's commonly referred to as a "link", "physical", or "media" layer, meaning it only deals with the transmission of raw datagrams.
Concepts like ACKs, retransmissions, backoff (flow control) apply to the "transport" layer, and those particular terms are strongly associated with TCP/IP.
Implementing your own complete transport layer from scratch is very difficult and almost certainly not what you want to do. If instead you want to use the existing TCP/IP stack on top of your own custom interpretation of 802.11, then you probably want to create a virtual network interface. This would act as an intermediary between TCP/IP and the media layer.
Hopefully this gives you some better context and keywords to look for.