I'm developing a linux kernel module for an embedded system.
The system contains programmable logic (PL), which needs to be accessed from userspace processes.
The PL can change at runtime.
My module allows processes to access specified hw registers and pages.
These mappings are configured (at runtime) in the configfs binding of my module.
Every mapping gets an entry in configfs over which its accessible.
I would like to allow processes to mmap whole pages, so they're able to communicate directly with the PL.
But configfs doesn't support mmap.
Is there a reason why?
Sysfs supports mmap, so I see no problem why configfs shouldn't.
A solution would be to mirror my configfs tree into sysfs,
but this defeats the whole reason to use configfs... Any ideas?
configfs is not a replacement for sysfs. In fact, it can be viewed as an opposite to sysfs.
sysfs provides a view of kernel's objects though the filesystem interface. It can be used to change things in or cause some actions on those objects, but it was not meant for that. The major point here is that each object that is represented in sysfs is created and destroyed in kernel. The kernel controls the lifecycle of the sysfs representation, and sysfs is just a window on all this.
configfs, on the other hand, provides a way to create or change kernel objects through the filesystem interface. That's a fundamental difference. A user-space process can create directories within configfs. That action will cause a callback execution within the kernel and the creation of the corresponding kernel object. The files in the directory would represent states of various object's components.
I suspect that due to the nature of data exchange between the kernel and a user space process in these two cases it was deemed unnecessary to have mmap support in configfs.
Without seeing the design/architecture of your system it's difficult to say something definitive in your case. From your description is appears that sysfs may be what you need to satisfy the desired goals. All objects that you need access to are created, modified, and destroyed from the kernel. Limited settings/changes to existing kernel structures/objects in your module can be done through sysfs interface. Then again, it may well be that you would want to have both sysfs and configfs interfaces in your module, each for its specific purpose. There's nothing bad in that if it makes things cleaner and clearer.
Related
Ignoring some details there are two low-level SHM APIs available for in Linux.
We have the older (e.g System V IPC vs POSIX IPC) SysV interface using:
ftok
shmctl
shmget
shmat
shmdt
and the newer Posix interface (though Posix seems to standardize the SysV one as well):
shm_open
shm_unlink
It is possible and safe to share memory such that one program uses shm_open() while the other uses shmget() ?
I think the answer is no, though someone wiser may know better.
shm_open(path,...) maps one file to a shared memory segment whereas ftok(path,id,...) maps a named placeholder file to one or more segments.
See this related question - Relationship between shared memory and files
So on the one hand you have a one to one mapping between filenames and segments and on the other a one to many - as in the linked question.
Also the path used by shmget() is just a placeholder. For shm_open() the map might be the actual file (though this is implementation defined).
I'm not sure there is anyway to make shm_open() and shmat() refer to the same memory location.
Even if you could mix them somehow it would probably be undefined behaviour.
If you look the glibc implementation of shm_open it is simply a wrapper to opening a file.
The implementation of shmget and shmat are internal system calls.
It may be that they share an implementation further down in the Linux kernal but this is not a detail that should be exposed or relied upon.
I know that kernel modules are used to write device drivers. You can add new system calls to the Linux kernel and use it to communicate with other devices.
I also read that ioctl is a system call used in linux to implement system calls which are not available in the kernel by default.
My question is, why wouldn't you just write a new kernel module for your device instead of using ioctl? why would ioctl b useful where kernel modules exist?
You will need to write a kernel driver in either case, but you can choose between adding a new syscall and adding a ioctl.
Let's say you want to add a feature to get the tuner settings for a video capturing device.
If you implement it as a syscall:
You can't just load a module, you need to change the kernel itself
Hundreds of drivers could each add dozens of syscalls each, kludging up the table with thousands of global functions that must be kept forever.
For the driver to have any reach, you will need to convince kernel maintainers that this burden is worthwhile.
You will need to upstream the definition into glibc, and people must upgrade before they can write programs for it
If you implement it as an ioctl:
You can build your module for an existing kernel and let users load it, without having to get kernel maintainers involved
All functions are simple per-driver constants in the applicable header file, where they can easily be added or removed
Everyone can start programming with it just by including the header
Since an ioctl is much easier, more flexible, and exactly meant for all these driver specific function calls, this is generally the preferred method.
I also read that ioctl is a system call used in linux to implement system calls which are not available in the kernel by default.
This is incorrect.
System calls are (for Linux) listed in syscalls(2) (there are hundreds of them between user space and kernel land) and ioctl(2) is one of them. Read also wikipage on ioctl and on Unix philosophy and Linux Assembler HowTo
In practice, ioctl is mostly used on device files, and used for things which are not a read(2) or a write(2) of bytes.
For example, a sound is made by writing bytes to /dev/audio, but to change the volume you'll use some ioctl. See also fcntl(2) playing a similar role.
Input/output could also happen (somehow indirectly ...) thru mmap(2) and related virtual address space system calls.
For much more, read Advanced Linux Programming and Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces. Look into Osdev for more hints about coding your own OS.
A kernel module could implement new devices, or new ioctl, etc... See kernelnewbies for more. I tend to believe it might sometimes add a few new syscalls (but this was false in older linux kernels like 3.x ones)
Linux is mostly open source. Please download then look inside source code. See also Linux From Scratch.
IIRC, Linux kernel 1.0 did not have any kernel modules. But that was around 1995.
A virtual file system (VFS) or virtual filesystem switch is an abstraction layer on top of a more concrete file system. The purpose of a VFS is to allow client applications to access different types of concrete file systems in a uniform way.
This definition seems to be perfect if we see the actual work of VFS.
But at some places people call the procfs and sysfs also the virtual file system because they ( procfs and sysfs ) do not exist actually and are based on dynamic information collected from different processes.
So is it correct to to call the procfs as the VFS. I do not feel so , if it is correct then we are not keeping VFS definition, VFS is a layer to inter-operate among various file systems. It is not a particular file system in itself. What do you say?
Procfs, sysfs, debugfs, etc are not the VFS.
They are proper filesystem implementations, lying 'under' the VFS layer.
It's important to realize that they are real filesystems in all respects; it's just that they "live" in RAM. As they don't use a non-volatile storage medium, they are sometimes referred to as 'volatile' filesystems or pseudo-fs.
I would like to mention here what I finally concluded.VFS is Virtual Filesystem Switch when used as an abstraction layer because it is helping the filesystem switching on the go. While procfs even we consider it as a filesystem, It will be known as virtual file system not a VFS.
I developed a kernel module and some functions on it. Now i need to develop a program in the user space and call some functions which are in the kernel module.
I also need to access some global variable that are in the kernel module on my program at the user space.
There is complete overview of linux-kernel module and user-space program interacting http://wiki.tldp.org/kernel_user_space_howto "Kernel Space, User Space Interfaces" by Ariane Keller (it is from 2008-09-28, but about 2.6 kernels; only major new way is relayfs)
No ordinary function call from user space to kernel space is listed, only syscall (adding new syscall is not easy) and upcall (call in inverse direction).
One of easiest interface is ioctl; but you can't start to use ioctl before creating procfs, sysfs or similiar file.
Other is sysctl; but sysctl is more eligible to reading/writing to global variable. (It is hard to pass several parameters via sysctl interface).
You seem to be missing the point of kernel and userland separation. If your user program could modify data inside the kernel directly, that would quickly lead to disaster.
There's only one conventional way for a user program to explicitly request services from the kernel - make a system call.
There are also traps and some Linux-specific userland-kernel communication mechanisms, but those are not relevant here.
As other posters have mentioned, there is a clear distinction between kernel and user space. So no you can't call a kernel function directly from user space. I think the easiest way to send messages between userspace and kernel space is via netlink sockets. A netlink socket allows you to easily pass arbitrary data structures between user level and kernel level.
Yes ioctl, system calls are viable alternatives, they are not as flexible as the netlink socket for passing arbitrary information.
You'll need to install a new kernel to make use of the new call unless you already have some mechanism to update the kernel ... http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/how-to-patch-running-linux-kernel.html
I'm currently developing an application which needs a lot of system and process information, some of which is only available through /proc, and I have some general questions about accessing the structures.
The application will be run on Linux (kernel >= 2.6), not on any other Unix-flavored OS. It should have access to any data in /proc, I can't say what is necessary now as the specifications are not clear yet, but the whole /proc directory is relevant to the application.
First of all: Is there a good documentation which covers all the features added / removed from kernel version to kernel version? One thing I'm curious about in particular is the format of the individual files. Can I take that for granted? Does it change among kernel versions?
Hooking up the parsing process based on the kernel wouldn't be a problem at all, it's just that I couldn't find any good docs on what has changed from version to version which could help me catching parsing errors in beforehand.
In addition: Is there a definite list of features that can be activated / deactivated by kernel options (except of course the /proc-feature itself)? I'm looking for a list of files / directories that only exist with the appropriate options being set in the kernel.
As an example of what I'm thinking of, this is a link to the proc manpage (http://linux.die.net/man/5/proc) which includes a lot of good information, e.g. some options include the earliest kernel version they were available at, some include whether a module is necessary to be loaded. This does not describe the output format of all information though, which is something I need if I want to parse it (e.g. if it is consistent throughout all kernel versions or changed at some point).
The second thing I'm wondering about is what happens if the process queried dies while being queried. What is my time interval? For example if I'm going to fetch a list of processes reading all the structures, and parse them one after another, what happens if my process x dies before I get to read it? Even if I check if the directory exists, it could still be gone one application call later.
Last but not least: Is there any major distribution out there that is not mounting proc?
From what I understand, a lot of common tools are based on the /proc interface such as lsmod or free, so I'm guessing that I can expect /proc to exist almost always.
The /proc interfaces are pretty stable (unlike the /sys interfaces), even if nothing is guaranteed. Almost all changes are backwards compatible, at least if they've been around for a few versions. You should
stick to the documented interfaces to be safe. If a file exists, its format may be extended in later versions, but normally in a backwards compatible way, e.g. adding columns to a table. The parts that are most at risk of disappearing are parts concerning hardware susbystems such as ACPI or SCSI, which are migrating to /sys (with a long transition period when both exist).
Most of the information is architecture-independent, except for hardware information (e.g. /proc/cpuinfo has very different fields on different architectures).
The main documentation is Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt in the kernel source. Consider proc(5) to be the overview and proc.txt to be the fine details. The kernel documentation is often incomplete, so don't be surprised if you need to resort to reading the source sometimes.
Most optional parts of /proc are activated by default if the driver whose data it exposes is included in the kernel. The exceptions are mostly related to hardware features that rarely need to be accessed from outside the kernel; if you need to access these features, you're probably already expecting to need to dig deeper. Look through Kconfig files in the kernel source for detailed information.
Process data (or hardware data related to removable hardware or provided by unloadable modules) can disappear under your nose. Most files under /proc can be read atomically, with a single read call with a reasonably-sized buffer; if you perform multiple read calls in sequence, drivers are supposed to guarantee that you get well-formed data. There is no way to guarantee atomicity between reads of separate files; if you're reading information about a process, this process can die at any time, and in principle could even be replaced by another process with the same PID before you're finished.
As it says in the description of /proc, “everyone should say Y here”. All desktop/server Linux systems and most embedded Linux systems must have /proc; a lot of things, including ps and other process management commands, many filesystem and device-related tools, and module loading, require it. The only systems that might be able to dispense with /proc are very small single-purpose embedded systems that support a single hardware configuration and run a fixed set of programs. You can count on its being here.