It is said that applications in smartphone operating systems work inside a secure sandbox. What sort of security does it provide?
If it is secured, and other applications do not have read write permissions to another app, then how does inter process communication come in to the picture? If processes(applications) can communicate via interprocess communication methods, how does it bypass the sandbox?
Your question is very broad, but since it is tagged with blackberry-10 I assume you are interested in this platform specifically.
At the lowest level, the QNX kernel is essentially an interprocess communications system. The kernel doesn't actually do anything other than pass messages from one process to another. So that is how IPC is managed at the low level.
At the highest level, and most mundane implementation, BB10 uses shared files. If the owner grants an application permission, it may read from and write to a set of directories that are shared with other applications given that permission.
For direct IPC BB10 has what BlackBerry calls the invokation framework. This allows processes to share not only data, but executable code and user interface elements. The owner sees this as the saring system, and cards.
Related
I am working in a Linux based embedded project with C/C++ and python applications. And we need an Inter Process Communication (IPC) method to transport JSON based messages between those applications. Initially DBus was an obvious option since it is present in almost all Linux distributions and is quite stable and proved software. Also there are libraries for many programming languages. Also DBus has a very granular and nice permission system - which is a requirement for our project (security reasons).
But unfortunately we have experienced some drawbacks of DBus:
We have hit some stability bugs like in some specific congestion situations there were some memory leaks which lead to dead IPC and only application restart helped.
Only the usage of DBus introduced 3-5 MB of ram usage per each application (which on a system with 512 MB RAM and multiplied by 25 applications does make some room for improvements).
The data flow model (signals / methods) seem to be a bit too complicated for the use-case we need.
Our next idea is to switch to some of Message broker available. But we also look for some nice to have features:
Be able to broadcast or Multicast messages to multiple applications
To have presence of applications when they connect/disconnect from the bus-server (the server can broadcast when new applications connect and when applications disconnect).
Watchdog of connected applications. Sometimes the apps might behave wrong on the IPC (by not answering to IPC messages) and the server with watchdog could detect that and disconnect that application and inform others that the application is dead.
How do we avoid DBus in this scenario?
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 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
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
My goal is to monitor sockets and relate them to the applications that created them.
I am aware of netstat, ss, lsof and so on and that they can list all sockets with their application.
And I also know that I can parse /proc/net/tcp to get the sockets and relate them to the applications with /proc/(PID), which is exactly what these tools do or they use netlink sockets.
My researches brought me to an article which explains how to get all sockets from the kernel with netlink via the inet_diag protocol. The user space program sets up a netlink socket of the inet_diag type and sends a request to the kernel. The response consists of several messages which contain the sockets and additional related information.
This is really neat, but unfortunately the kernel sends this information only once per request. So I have to "poll" continuously.
Further researches brought me to another article which monitors IP changes of interfaces with netlink route sockets continuously. The socket is bound to a multicast group and then messages are read from it in an endless loop.
So I investigated if there is the same possibility with the inet_diag sockets. Unfortunately I am not really able to understand kernel code. But as far as I can tell there are no multicast groups for this socket family.
At this point I am stuck and I need to know if this approach is somehow feasible or somebody knows any other hints.
You can try dtrace if every tools you mentioned can't meet your requirement.
You can use kprobe kernel module to hook all connect system call，whichi monitor sockets and relate them to the applications that created them
just like Elkeid，Elkeid Driver hooks kernel functions via Kprobe, providing rich and accurate data collection capabilities, including kernel-level process execve probing, privilege escalation monitoring, network audition, and much more. The Driver treats Container-based monitoring as a first-class citizen as Host-based data collection by supporting Linux Namespace. Compare to User Space agents on the market, Elkeid provides more comprehensive information with massive performance improvement.