I have such setup. I need to program on some embedded device which in spec says to run Linux (although when you turn on the device, clearly the display doesn't show anything linux related - small display).
The embedded device has its own SDK.
Now, I thought using valgrind to check for memory management/allocation.
Can I use valgrind to check a program written for my device?
The problem I see is that the program might contain some device specific SDK calls, hence the program might not run on ordinary fedora linux that I run on my desktop for example.
What are my options?
Running valgrind on embedded devices can be quite challenging, if not impossible.
What you can do is to create unit tests, and execute them using valgrind on the host platform. That is a way to at least check memory problems of part of the code.
Other option is to use platform emulation, and run programs in emulators (again on the host system). QEMU is quite famous open source emulator.
Perhaps.
Make sure you really run Linux, of course.
Figure out the hardware platform; Valgrind supports quite a few platforms but not all.
Consider whether your platform has resources (memory and CPU speed) to spare; running Valgrind is quite costly.
If all of those check out ok, then you should be able to run Valgrind, assuming of course you can get it onto the target machine. You might need to build and install it yourself, of course.
I assume you have some form of terminal/console access, i.e. over serial port, telnet, or something that you can use to run programs on the target.
UPDATE: Based on feedback in comments, I'm starting to doubt the possibility for you to run Valgrind on your particular device.
Related
I am just learning linux kernel programming with the LINUX KERNEL DEVELOPMENT book(I am beginner linux kernel programming but not on linux programming). It is possible to test programs in a kernel machine with VMware viritual on Ubuntu without damage my system ?
Yes you can safely test kernel modules on a virtual machine!
I'll give you some links that may help:
watch this site
http://free-electrons.com/
in particular this book:
http://free-electrons.com/doc/books/ldd3.pdf
Also this guide:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/
An embedded distro is even better
An Ubuntu guest is fine, but I prefer to keep things minimal and use an embedded distro, as this will make things:
simpler and easier to understand and control
faster
In particular, I recommend using:
Buildroot, which is highly configurable, documented and maintained, also builds host QEMU so easy to patch it up (e.g. to add your own devices since out-of-tree devices are not possible yet ?)
QEMU emulator: small comprehensible source, ARM support, official Android emulator, kernel GDB support
Embedded distros can generate rootfs images smaller than 10MiB, and it becomes possible to understand the entire userland setup, which will make it easier to focus on the kernel.
I have made a setup to make everything as automated as possible: https://github.com/cirosantilli/linux-kernel-module-cheat
I've been using a VM for a long time for Linux kernel programming and I've never had any problem. Actually, if you manage to violate the protections of a VM then you will probably be hired by Oracle or VMWare :D
However, I recommend you to read this post: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/23452/is-it-safe-to-use-virtual-machines-when-examining-malware
First of all, I cannot use a debugger[1]. But I can access the Program Counter of a program, and can also compile the binary (written in C) with all the flags I need. And I can even change the code (although I prefer not to). Given a PC I want to be able to know which line it corresponds.
I'm sure there has to be an automated, practical, quick way to do this. But I haven't succeeded.
Edit: Forgot to mention: Linux system, binaries are PPC, host is i386. I do have access to PPC hardware.
[1] The application is being emulated, and it is cross compiled, I have a gdb in the host emulator. But I cannot connect a gdbserver on the emulated guest application. And real hardware is not an option, I'm trying to build a simulator based on the emulator.
If the binary is compiled with debugging information, then you can use the PC to find the right location in the source by groping through the ELF sections that contain the debug information. Automated, quick and practical aren't the terms that spring to mind for the process, though!
I'm trying to debug a simple cross-platform commandline program (a C parser, itself written in C) and running into something strange.
On Windows, when I run it on a small dataset (the source code of glib) it completes successfully, and when I run it on a large dataset (the source code of the Linux kernel) it exits with an out of memory error. I'm not sure whether the latter is a bug in my code or just a consequence of not just having optimized the memory consumption yet, so I've been trying to run it on Linux so I can get some feedback from valgrind.
On Linux (Ubuntu 11.04 x64 in VirtualBox), when I run my program on a small dataset it completes successfully, and when I run it on a large dataset Linux locks up hard enough I have to reset the entire virtual box (mouse pointer still moves but other than that it's completely unresponsive; Windows task manager says the virtual box is using one hundred percent of a CPU core but not allocating memory).
I wouldn't have expected a bug in my code to crash Linux unless I was writing something like a device driver, and when I try simple test cases that allocate too much memory, go into an infinite loop or both, Linux can handle them just fine. What kind of bug should I be looking for, or what am I missing?
On Linux (Ubuntu 11.04 x64 in VirtualBox)
Probably you haven't reserved enough memory to your virtual machine.
This is most likely an infinite loop (easily done in a parser), which could easily take up 100% cpu or 100% ram.
Attach a debugger!
e.g. gdb
http://www.gnu.org/s/gdb/
gdb comes with gcc on Ubuntu etc...
Here's a how-to: http://www.unknownroad.com/rtfm/gdbtut/gdbtoc.html
EDIT: just saw you already tried gdb. So, try running strace on it, it might give you a hint.
Further to that, try adding log messages to see how far the program gets (primitive, but it'll work eventually!)
I don't quite understand the compiling process of the Linux kernel when I install
a Linux system on my machine.
Here are some things that confused me:
The kernel is written in C, however how did the kernel get compiled without a compiler installed?
If the C compiler is installed on my machine before the kernel is compiled, how can the compiler itself get compiled without a compiler installed?
I was so confused for a couple of days, thanks for the response.
The first round of binaries for your Linux box were built on some other Linux box (probably).
The binaries for the first Linux system were built on some other platform.
The binaries for that computer can trace their root back to an original system that was built on yet another platform.
...
Push this far enough, and you find compilers built with more primitive tools, which were in turn built on machines other than their host.
...
Keep pushing and you find computers built so that their instructions could be entered by setting switches on the front panel of the machine.
Very cool stuff.
The rule is "build the tools to build the tools to build the tools...". Very much like the tools which run our physical environment. Also known as "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps".
I think you should distinguish between:
compile, v: To use a compiler to process source code and produce executable code [1].
and
install, v: To connect, set up or prepare something for use [2].
Compilation produces binary executables from source code. Installation merely puts those binary executables in the right place to run them later. So, installation and use do not require compilation if the binaries are available. Think about ”compile” and “install” like about “cook” and “serve”, correspondingly.
Now, your questions:
The kernel is written in C, however how did the kernel get compiled without a compiler installed?
The kernel cannot be compiled without a compiler, but it can be installed from a compiled binary.
Usually, when you install an operating system, you install an pre-compiled kernel (binary executable). It was compiled by someone else. And only if you want to compile the kernel yourself, you need the source and the compiler, and all the other tools.
Even in ”source-based” distributions like gentoo you start from running a compiled binary.
So, you can live your entire life without compiling kernels, because you have them compiled by someone else.
If the C compiler is installed on my machine before the kernel is compiled, how can the compiler itself get compiled without a compiler installed?
The compiler cannot be run if there is no kernel (OS). So one has to install a compiled kernel to run the compiler, but does not need to compile the kernel himself.
Again, the most common practice is to install compiled binaries of the compiler, and use them to compile anything else (including the compiler itself and the kernel).
Now, chicken and egg problem. The first binary is compiled by someone else... See an excellent answer by dmckee.
The term describing this phenomenon is bootstrapping, it's an interesting concept to read up on. If you think about embedded development, it becomes clear that a lot of devices, say alarm clocks, microwaves, remote controls, that require software aren't powerful enough to compile their own software. In fact, these sorts of devices typically don't have enough resources to run anything remotely as complicated as a compiler.
Their software is developed on a desktop machine and then copied once it's been compiled.
If this sort of thing interests you, an article that comes to mind off the top of my head is: Reflections on Trusting Trust (pdf), it's a classic and a fun read.
The kernel doesn't compile itself -- it's compiled by a C compiler in userspace. In most CPU architectures, the CPU has a number of bits in special registers that represent what privileges the code currently running has. In x86, these are the current privilege level bits (CPL) in the code segment (CS) register. If the CPL bits are 00, the code is said to be running in security ring 0, also known as kernel mode. If the CPL bits are 11, the code is said to be running in security ring 3, also known as user mode. The other two combinations, 01 and 10 (security rings 1 and 2 respectively) are seldom used.
The rules about what code can and can't do in user mode versus kernel mode are rather complicated, but suffice to say, user mode has severely reduced privileges.
Now, when people talk about the kernel of an operating system, they're referring to the portions of the OS's code that get to run in kernel mode with elevated privileges. Generally, the kernel authors try to keep the kernel as small as possible for security reasons, so that code which doesn't need extra privileges doesn't have them.
The C compiler is one example of such a program -- it doesn't need the extra privileges offered by kernel mode, so it runs in user mode, like most other programs.
In the case of Linux, the kernel consists of two parts: the source code of the kernel, and the compiled executable of the kernel. Any machine with a C compiler can compile the kernel from the source code into the binary image. The question, then, is what to do with that binary image.
When you install Linux on a new system, you're installing a precompiled binary image, usually from either physical media (such as a CD DVD) or from the network. The BIOS will load the (binary image of the) kernel's bootloader from the media or network, and then the bootloader will install the (binary image of the) kernel onto your hard disk. Then, when you reboot, the BIOS loads the kernel's bootloader from your hard disk, and the bootloader loads the kernel into memory, and you're off and running.
If you want to recompile your own kernel, that's a little trickier, but it can be done.
Which one was there first? the chicken or the egg?
Eggs have been around since the time of the dinosaurs..
..some confuse everything by saying chickens are actually descendants of the great beasts.. long story short: The technology (Egg) was existent prior to the Current product (Chicken)
You need a kernel to build a kernel, i.e. you build one with the other.
The first kernel can be anything you want (preferably something sensible that can create your desired end product ^__^)
This tutorial from Bran's Kernel Development teaches you to develop and build a smallish kernel which you can then test with a Virtual Machine of your choice.
Meaning: you write and compile a kernel someplace, and read it on an empty (no OS) virtual machine.
What happens with those Linux installs follows the same idea with added complexity.
It's not turtles all the way down. Just like you say, you can't compile an operating system that has never been compiled before on a system that's running that operating system. Similarly, at least the very first build of a compiler must be done on another compiler (and usually some subsequent builds too, if that first build turns out not to be able to compile its own source code just yet).
I think the very first Linux kernels were compiled on a Minix box, though I'm not certain about that. GCC was available at the time. One of the very early goals of many operating systems is to run a compiler well enough to compile their own source code. Going further, the first compiler was almost certainly written in assembly language. The first assemblers were written by those poor folks who had to write in raw machine code.
You may want to check out the Linux From Scratch project. You actually build two systems in the book: a "temporary system" that is built on a system you didn't build yourself, and then the "LFS system" that is built on your temporary system. The way the book is currently written, you actually build the temporary system on another Linux box, but in theory you could adapt it to build the temporary system on a completely different OS.
If I am understanding your question correctly. The kernel isn't "compiling itself" these days. Most Linux distributions today provide system installation through a linux live cd. The kernel is loaded from the CD into memory and operates as it would normally as if it were installed to disk. With a linux environment up and running on your system it is easy to just commit the necessary files to your disk.
If you were talking about the bootstrapping issue; dmckee summed it up pretty nice.
Just offering another possibility...
I like programming challenges, and writing a kernel seems a programming challenge.
Unfortunately, kernels are particularly hard to test because they are basically the core of operating systems and so they can't be easily ran on top of an operating system.
However, I know about applications called Virtual Machines that can emulate computer hardware.
What is the easiest/best way to develop and test kernels(C+Assembly) using Virtual Machines?
While BOCHS seems to be better at letting you know when something goes horribly wrong with your pet OS... it is very slooooow! I use VirtualPC for general purpose testing and BOCHS when things get murky.
Also, you will more than likely be booting the OS every 2 minutes, so it helps to have some sort of automated way to build a boot image & fire off the Virtual PC.
I built a GRUB boot floppy image with all the necessary stuff to get it to boot the Kernel.Bin from the root. I use a batch file to copy this file to the virtual project directory, use FAT Image Generator to copy my kernel to the image. Then just launch the VirtualPC project. Vola!
Excerpt from my batch file:
COPY Images\Base.vfd Images\Boot.vfd /Y
fat_imgen.exe modify Images\Boot.vfd -f Source\Bin\KERNEL.BIN
COPY Images\Boot.vfd Emulators\VirtualPC\ /Y
START Emulators\VirtualPC\MyOS.vmc
One last suggestion: Set the VirtualPC process priority to low - trust me on this one!
I'd be happy to exchange some code!
Tools: DGJPP, NASM, GRUB.
Code: osdev.org, osdever.net
You might be interested in looking at HelenOS. Its a from scratch microkernel that has been ported to many architectures (boots just fine on bare metal) developed using simulators such as Simics and QEMU.
We use a static grub that is copied to the final ISO during the build process. Some things just have to be that way until the OS becomes self hosting. I highly recommend NOT implementing your own userspace C library unless you really do want to do everything from scratch .. you'll become self hosting much sooner :)
Though Simics is non-free, I highly recommend it (and its built in debugging/profiling tools) while making your kernel. Once you have some kind of kernel console and logger in place, QEMU does a very nice job.
It's straightforward. Set up a virtual machine, write your kernel, copy it to the virtual machine, boot the virtual machine.
You'll need to be more specific if you want more specific advice.
Probably just setting up a machine (x86, I guess), and then investigate exactly how it behaves during boot. There should be one or more files in the host machine's file system that act as the virtual machine's file system, and then you'd need to put some boot sector information there that causes your in-development kernel to boot.
That would of course mean that the build system on the host has a way to write the kernel to the virtual machine's file system, which might vary in difficulty.
Picking one at random, bochs seems to support editing the boot media from the outside using standard tools like dd etc.
The first question that you need to ask yourself is what hardware architecture are you targeting? I'll assume for the sake of this discussion that you are targeting the IA_32 architecture, which would probably be a wise choice as there is plenty of readily-available documentation on that processor.
If you're truly serious about this undertaking, then you will definitely want to run your debug/code/build/deploy cycle against an emulator or VM. Someone mentioned BOCHS, which is very popular. If emulation speed is your thing, there is also an emulator called Qemu that is faster than BOCHS.
I'd suggest that your development environment run under Linux or Windows, which again would probably be a wise choice due to the available documentation for those dev environments.
Make is your friend. Use it to automate the build/execute process. I'd advise you to pick your toolsets/compilers up front, and spend some time learning them well. It will save you in the long run.