I want to develop a diskless product based on UEFI(the diskless product based on legacy BIOS has been popular for many years),but I has met one problem ----
To hook DiskIO Protocol and BlockIO Protocl is needed to filter some IO operations to replace the original protocols in UEFI,but I don't know the way to make this realized. So I wanna get answers here.
Register protocol notification event to get called after that protocols are published, and call gBS->ReinstallProtocolInterface to replace them with your hooked ones.
Related
I'm dealing with the following challenge. In my system, there are two devices. Tags and anchors. Tags have BLE module with the transmit power 0dBm and not Long Range feature (BLE 4.0). Anchors have BLE module with transmit power over 8dBm and Long range feature (BLE 5.0).
I want tags to only receive some commands. Bi-directional communication is not necessary. This way, I can utilize the transmit power of anchor (8dBm) and thus quite bigger range, if tag with 0dBm is only receiving.
I read something about Observer/Broadcaster principle, where connecting is not necessary. But somehow devices have to agree on what frequencies should they hop on, the step and so on.
I'm asking, is it possible for device to only receive commands without previous negotiation with the sender?
Thank you very much for help. I'm beginning with BLE standard and there is a lot to learn.
Yes, it is possible to send data via adverts/scanning only. This way, there's no connection that needs to be established, and therefore no connection parameter negotiation takes place. As for the frequency hopping agreement - this happens via the baseband (in other words you will not deal with this in the software yourself) and is generally not applicable for advertising/scanning (these happen on 3 frequency channels only and therefore it is likely that the observer will catch what the broadcaster is broadcasting).
However, keep in mind that because you are broadcasting/advertising the data as opposed to directly sending it, that data can be received by any observing/scanning BLE devices which is not desired for safety/security/privacy purposes.
For more information on BLE communication, I recommend the links below:-
Getting Started with Bluetooth Low Energy
Is it Possible to Send Data with BLE Broadcast Mode
Rfid Readers perform switches between antennas while using multiple antennas. Reader runs one antenna while others sleeping and switches one by one. It makes it fast so running one antenna at a time doesn't matter. According to my observations, the time for every switch is 1 second.
(After sometime I realised this 1 second is only for Motorola FX7500. Most other readers do it the right way, light fast like in miliseconds)
That is what I know so far.
Now, in my specific application I need this procedure to run faster, like 200ms instead of 1s.
Is this value changeable? If so, which message and parameter in LLRP can modify this value?
Actually the 1 second problem is with MotorolaFX7500 reader. By examining LLRP messages that Motorola's own library generates between FC7500, I discovered there are vendor specific parameters that can be used via custom extensions fields of LLRP. These params and settings can be found in Motorola Readers' software guide. This switch time is one of these vendor specific parameters, it's not a parameter of generic LLRP. A piece of code generating LLRP message including the custom extension with the proper format, solved my issue.
I'm trying to write a slightly modified CAN protocol for SocketCAN. The SocketCAN documentation has a short section about this:
5.3 writing own CAN protocol modules
To implement a new protocol in the protocol family PF_CAN a new
protocol has to be defined in include/linux/can.h .
The prototypes and definitions to use the SocketCAN core can be
accessed by including include/linux/can/core.h .
In addition to functions that register the CAN protocol and the
CAN device notifier chain there are functions to subscribe CAN
frames received by CAN interfaces and to send CAN frames:
can_rx_register - subscribe CAN frames from a specific interface
can_rx_unregister - unsubscribe CAN frames from a specific interface
can_send - transmit a CAN frame (optional with local loopback)
For details see the kerneldoc documentation in net/can/af_can.c or
the source code of net/can/raw.c or net/can/bcm.c .
(https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/can.txt)
The problem is I can't find some of the files referenced here. I'm not super familiar with the Linux kernel, so I don't know if I'm looking in the wrong place. I can find include/linux/can.h and the directory include/linux/can/ but there is no core.h file there. Additionally, I can't locate the net/ directory that is referenced.
Other info:
I am able to send and receive raw CAN frames, so I believe I have SocketCAN set up correctly
Contents of directory (where core.h should be):
beaglebone:~# ls /usr/include/linux/can/
bcm.h error.h gw.h netlink.h raw.h
I'm using Debian on a BeagleBone Black (I'm not sure if the embeddedness of my system makes a difference)
If someone can help point me to where I should be looking for these files, I would be very obliged.
Many thanks!
The CAN protocol is implemented in hardware; attempts to make packets that don't comply with the standard won't work with compliant hardware.
I need to make an old Linux box running 2.6.12.1 kernel communicate with an older computer that is using:
ISO 8602 Datagram (connectionless service) 1987 12 15 (1st Edition)
ISO 8073 Class 4 (connection oriented service)
These are using "Inactive Network Layer" subset. (I am pretty sure this means I do not have to worry about routing. The two end points are hitting each other with their mac addresses.)
I have a kernel module that implements the connectionless part. In order to get the connection oriented service operational, what is the best approach? I have been taking the approach of adding in the struct proto_ops .connect, .accept, .listen functions to my existing connectionless driver by referring to the tcp implementation.
Maybe there is a better approach? I am spending a lot of time trying to decide what the tcp code is doing and then deciding if that is relevant to my needs. For example, the Nagle algorithm isn't needed because I don't have small bits of data being transmitted. In addition, there are probably a lot of error recovery and flow control stuff I don't need because I know the data that the two endpoints are transmitting and how frequently they transmit it. My plan is to implement this first with whatever simplistic (if any) packet retransmission, sequencing, etc.. to the point where my wireshark looks similar to the wireshark capture I have from the live system. Then try mine against the real thing and then add in whatever error recovery/retransmit stuff seems necessary. In other words, it is a pain in the rear trying to determine what is the guts of the tcp/stream implementation that I want to copy vs the extra error correction/flow control stuff that I might never need.
I found \net\core\stream.c which says:
* Generic stream handling routines. These are generic for most
* protocols. Even IP. Tonight 8-).
* This is used because TCP, LLC (others too) layer all have mostly
* identical sendmsg() and recvmsg() code.
* So we (will) share it here.
This suggested to me that maybe there might be a simpler stream thingy that I can start from. Can someone recommend a more basic streams driver that I should start from instead of tcp?
Is there any example code that provides a basic stream implementation?
I made a user level library to implement the protocol providing my own versions of open/read/write/select etc. If anyone else cares, you can find me at http://pnwsoft.com
Do not attempt to use openss7. It is a total waste of time.
I would like to know if it is possible to do a full statement (between a date range) through ISO 8583, I have seen ATMs which do full statements and was wondering what method they used. I know balance inquiry and mini statements are possible on a POS devise over 8583.
If it is possible does anyone have an information on the structure of the message, ideally for FLexcube.
we did something similar to that back in 1999 in one of the banks, where we would send the statement data in one of the generic private use fields, where it would allow the format ANS 999
but that means you are either to restrict the data to less than 999 characters, or to split the data on multiple messages. and have a multi legged transaction.
you would have the following flow
Customer request for statement on ATM
ATM sends NDC/D912 message to ATM Switch
ATM Switch look up account number after authenticating the card and forward the request to Core Banking Application
Core banking application would generate the statement and format it according to predesigned template and send the statement data into a generic field (say 72)
ATM Switch collects the data and formats it to NDC or D912 format where the statement data is tagged to statement printer (in NDC it is a field called q and the value should be ‘8’ - Print on statement printer only)
and on the field r place the preformatted data
however, it is not a good practice to do so, since we have faster means to generate a statement and send to email or internet banking. but this is the bank's preference anyways.
It depends upon implementation,
I had implemented NCR central switch, where I incorporate initial checking stuffs in the Central application itself rather than passing everything to Auth Host.
My implementation.
ATM Sends (NCD) the transaction requests based on State Machine setup in ATM to Central Application.
Central does basic checkings such as Validity of BIN (initial 6 digit of card no.) and also checks if the requested amount of cash is available in the ATM etc.
The the Central App sends the packet (ISO8583/BASE24) is sent to the Acquirer for further processing.
Acquires Sends it to CA and then it goes to Issuer for Approval.
Hope this helps.
The mini-statement is not part of ISO 8583 (or MVA). It is usually implemented as a proprietary extension. Hence you need to go to an ATM owned by your bank, or, is part of a consortium of banks that share an ATM infrastructure with your bank.
We implemented mini-statements in our ISO-8583 specification utilizing a $0.00 0200 (DE003 = 91xxxx) message and the statement data coming back from the host on DE125 on both Connex and Base24 and then modified our stateful loads to print the data at the ATM.
Though full statements fell out of use years ago so we removed it to just be mini-statements now utilizing the receipt printer vs. full page statements. There is a limited number of entries and not all host support it but it is used today on NCR & Diebold ATMs. I've personally participated in the testing in getting it to work on Base24 and Postilion.
The mini-statement data we do print is 40 characters per line and prints about 10 transactions I believe.