Sorry If this is a noob question, but I'm developing a software "add on" for a game. I'm doing this through a driver simply because the anti-cheat doesn't support ring 0 detection. I haven't seen much info on how IOCTL can be used and i was wondering if you can send custom inputs like process ids and other information that may change or is it all set in stone like a switch function or something. Once again sorry for noob question.
You can communicate with a kernel-mode device driver via IOCTL using the DeviceIoControl Win32 API routine. This routine internally calls NtDeviceIoControlFile (NTDLL) which performs a system call to get NtDeviceIoControlFile (NTOSKRNL) executed.
The DeviceIoControl routine is documented at MSDN: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363216(v=vs.85).aspx
The kernel-mode device driver will have a prerequisite to fulfill: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/kernel/named-device-objects
I haven't seen much info on how IOCTL can be used and i was wondering if you can send custom inputs like process ids and other information
The answer is yes, you can send custom buffers via IOCTL. You can also receive an output buffer back from your kernel-mode device driver to the user-mode application which initiated the IOCTL operation - this is optional of course.
If you need to send multiple pieces of information at the same time, consider using a structure.
I also recommend you read the following:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/kernel/methods-for-accessing-data-buffers
Related
I am trying to implement "simple file-system" for my personal experience. For this, I have created a block device driver with which I will perform read/write operations in unit of blocks. Now my question is how should I perform open, read, write and close operation on the block device from the user application.
What I am actually looking for is a function with which I can open the block device /dev/sbd and it returns the struct block_device, if successful. And for the read/write functions, I can issue request to block device struct request with parameters as "buffer, sectore_number, numbe_of_sectors".
Till now I only got block_read() and block_write() functions. But it seems that they are BSD specific. And I am using Debain.
Anyone having idea about it?
Thanks.
I've been doing something similar writing a application level file system that works with files or devices. What you are writing is not really a device driver as device drivers are directly handled/used by the kernel. A user application has no way to access one directly. Regardless, I want to point you to the function calls open(2), read(2), write(2), close(2) (manual page section 2 for all of them). You will need the unistd.h header file to use these. You can set your read/write size as a multiple of your block size when calling read and write. But in the end, you are still going through the kernel.
EDIT: Upon further examination and comments, the device driver really is in the kernel. Normally, there is no direct connection between a driver and an application as there are several layers of code within the kernel to abstract the device so it looks the same like everything else to the application.
There are two ways around this. One is to establish one or more system calls in the system call tree to expose the read/write routines of the device driver to the application. Another idea that I had was to use the ioctl (I/O Control) system call to perform this, but this call is meant to control the actual device. For example, the hard disk uses read and write commands to transfer data, but to talk to the hard drive to get information about it, such as what the last LBA is or get its identity, you would use IOCTL to do that.
Hope this helps.
First of all, I am a device driver guy. This is my first time to handle an user mode program.
I used to have an interrupt service routine to response a hardware interrupt.
In other word, the hardware uses interrupt service routine to notify the driver to service.
I use ioctl to be a channel to communicate between the application and device driver now and poll it to wait the response.
Are there other ways that a device driver can notify an application when it finishes some task?
Any comments are welcome.
Thanks,
There are several mechanisms for this. First approach: user-space application makes poll() or select() system call, waiting for some event from kernel. Second approach is to use Netlink sockets. There are also others like mmap() or signals. Google by kernel user-space IPC and you will see the whole list.
As for your case (drivers development), I'd say go with next approach. Create sysfs file in your driver, and do sysfs_notify() (and maybe wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout() or something like that). In user-space do select() system call for your driver sysfs file. See how line discipline installed from user-space for example.
Typically, the kernel never notifies an application unless the application requests the notification and is waiting for the notification. On unix systems, this will typically be done using the select or similar routines. One supplies select with a set of file descriptors and select will then wait until there is activity on one of the file descriptors at which time it returns.
Given that on unix all devices are files, you should be able to make use of this mechanism to wake an application when an interrupt comes in on some hardware device.
There are plenty of kernel-userspace communication interfaces in addition to ioctl (signals, sockets, etc). Please, refer to Kernel Space - User Space Interfaces tutorial for detailed explanation.
I borrowed from this gentleman in order to request the signal strength of a wireless connection on my device. I would also like to use ioctl to get the operstate and whether or not there's up/down stream information flowing over the connection.
Basically, I'm attempting to modernize the look of this device, adding to it real-time status icons of link operability, quality, and activity. Originally, I was using popen() to cat and parse /proc/net/wireless and /sys/class/net/wlan0/operstate. The only issue was that occasionally that would fail (I assume because the OS had locked the file) so it was causing crashes.
So, my questions are two:
One, can I use ioctl in a way similar to the one described in the link above to monitor the operstate and connection activity? The information I could find pertaining to this was only for ifreq, not iwreq.
Two, it occurred to me while writing this that I should probably just have the kernel telling my application when the status of the wireless device changes, shouldn't I? I can't imagine various desktops' system trays have polling loops in them.
Actual Two: is there a way to have the kernel feed information into my application about operstate, link quality, and link activity in real-time?
Thank you in advance. =)
I'm implementing a custom serial bus driver for a certain ARM-based Linux board (a custom UART driver, actually). This driver shall enable communication with a certain MCU on the other end of the bus via a custom protocol. The driver will not (and actually must not) expose any of its functions to the userspace, nor it is possible to implement it in userspace at all (hence, the need for the custom driver instead of using the stock TTY subsystem).
The driver will implement the communication protocol and UART reads/writes, and it has to export a set of higher-level functions to its users to allow them to communicate with the MCU (e.g. read_register(), drive_gpios(), all this stuff). There will be only one user of this module.
The calling module will have to wait for the completion of the operations (the aforementioned read_register() and others). I'm currently considering using semaphores: the user module will call my driver's function, which will initiate the transfers and wait on a semaphore; the IRQ handler of my driver will send requests to the MCU and read the answers, and, when done, post to the semaphore, thus waking up the calling module. But I'm not really familiar with kernel programming, and I'm baffled by the multitude of possible alternative implementations (tasklets? wait queues?).
The question is: is my semaphore-based approach OK, or too naïve? What are the possible alternatives? Are there any pitfalls I may be missing?
Traditionally IRQ handling in Linux is done in two parts:
So called "upper-half" is actual working in IRQ context (IRQ handler itself). This part must exit as fast as possible. So it basically checks interrupt source and then starts bottom-half.
"Bottom-half". It may be implemented as work queue. It is where actual job is done. It runs in normal context, so it can use blocking functions, etc.
If you only want to wait for IRQ in your worker thread, better to use special object called completion. It is exactly created for this task.
Im writing a custom device driver in linux that has to be able to respond very rapidly on interrupts. Code to handle this already exists in a user-space implementation but that is too slow as it relies on software constantly checking the state of the interrupt line. After doing some research, I found that you can register these interrupt lines from a kernel module, and execute a function given by a function pointer. However the code we want to execute is in the user-space, is there a way to call a function in the user-space from a kernel space module?
You are out of luck with invoking user-space functions from the kernel since the kernel doesn't and isn't supposed to know about individual user-space application functions and logic, not to mention that each user-space application has its own memory layout, that no other process nor the kernel is allowed to invade in that way (shared objects are the exception here, but still you can't tap into that from the kernel space). What about the security model, you aren't supposed to run user-space code (which is automatically considered unsafe code in the kernel context) in the kernel context in the first place since that will break the security model of a kernel right there in that instant. Now considering all of the above mentioned, plus many other motives you might want to reconsider your approach and focus on Kernel <-> User-space IPC and Interfaces, the file system or the user-mode helper API(read bellow).
You can invoke user space apps from the kernel though, that using the usermode-helper API. The following IBM DeveloperWorks article should get you started on using the usermode-helper Linux kernel API:
Kernel APIs, Part 1: Invoking user-space applications from the kernel
I think the easiest way is to register a character device which becomes ready when the device has some data.
Any process which tries to read from this device, then gets put to sleep until the device is ready, then woken up, at which point it can do the appropriate thing.
If you just want to signal readyness, a reader could just read a single null byte.
The userspace program would then just need to execute a blocking read() call, and would be blocked appropriately, until you wake it up.
You will need to understand the kernel scheduler's wait queue mechanism to use this.
Sounds like your interrupt line is already available to userspace via gpiolib? (/sys/class/gpio/...)
Have you benchmarked if gpio edge triggering and poll() is fast enough for you? That way you don't have to poll the status from the userspace application but edge triggering will report it via poll(). See Documentation/gpio.txt in kernel source.
If the edge triggering via sysfs is not good enough, then the proper way is to develop a kernel driver that takes care of the time critical part and exports the results to userspace via a API (sysfs, device node, etc).
I am also facing the same problem, I read this document http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~arkeller/linux/multi/kernel_user_space_howto-6.html, so planning to use signals. In my case there is no chance of losing signals, because
1. the system is closed loop, after signals executed then only I will get another signal.
2. And I am using POSIX real-time signals.