Hi,
I'm writing a kernel module, and I want to expose some debug
information about it.
The debug information is often of the form of request-response.
For example:
- Hey module, what's up with data at 0xffffe8ff0040c000?
- Cached, populated two hours ago.
- Hey module, please invalidate data at 0xffffe8ff0002cb00
- Sure thing.
- Hey module, please record all accesses to 0xffffe8ff0006bbf0.
- OK, ask me again for stats-5
...
- Hey module, what's in stats-5?
- So far, 41 accesses by 22 users.
Now, the question is, what is a good design to expose this information.
I think that the most reasonable way to interact with userspace is
through a debugfs file.
The user would open the debugfs file in read+write mode, would write a
request, and accept a response from it.
As I see it, there are two fundamental problems needs to be solved:
- Parsing the request from the client.
- Writing the response in a recognizeable format.
A simple solution I first came up with, is to use a ad-hoc
request-response format. In my case, request and response are line
delimited, request is a hex address, and response is a translated hex
address.
Here is the relevant snippet.
struct pipe {
DECLARE_KFIFO(fifo, T, (1<<4));
wait_queue_head_t queue;
char buf[100];
int buflen;
char resp[100];
int resp_len;
};
static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex);
static int open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
struct pipe *pipe;
if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) || !(file->f_mode & FMODE_READ)) {
pr_warn("must open with O_RDWR\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
mutex_lock(&mutex);
pipe = kzalloc(sizeof(*pipe), GFP_KERNEL);
INIT_KFIFO(pipe->fifo);
init_waitqueue_head(&pipe->queue);
file->private = pipe;
}
static int write(struct file *file, const char __user *ubuf, size_t
count, loff_t *ppos)
{
char *eol;
size_t n = min_t(size_t, count, sizeof(pipe->buf));
struct pipe *pipe = file->private_data;
if (copy_from_user(&pipe->buf[pipe->buflen], ubuf, n)
return -EFAULT;
eol = memchr(buf, '\n', n);
if (eol == NULL)
return count;
*eol = '\0';
// TODO: wait when queue full
if (!kfifo_in(&pipe->fifo, processLine(buf), 1)
return -EFAULT;
wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->queue);
memmove(&pipe->buf[0], &pipe->buf[n], pipe->buflen-n);
}
static int read(struct file *file, const char __user *ubuf, size_t
count, loff_t *ppos)
{
struct pipe *pipe = file->private_data;
T req;
wait_event_interruptible(pipe->queue, kfifo_out(&pipe->fifo, &req, 1));
process_request(req, &pipe->resp, &pipe->resp_len);
if (count < pipe->resp_len)
return -EFAULT; // TODO: handle copy to client in parts
if (copy_to_user(userbuf, buf, pipe->resp_len))
return -EFAULT;
}
Usage is:
fd = io.FileIO("/debug/mymodule/file", "r+")
fd.write('req...')
print fd.read(100)
This is not so robust, for many reasons (look how many bugs are in
this small and simple snippet), and some parts need to be repeated for
each input type.
What I've had in mind, in similar fashion to grpc.io, have the user
write a size prefixed protocol buffer object to the file, and
similarly read it as a response.
Something like:
fd = io.FileIO("/debug/mymodule/file", "r+")
fd.write(myReq.SerializeToString())
len = struct.unpack("<i", fd.read(4))
Resp.ParseFromString(fd.read(len))
I believe it is not hard to create a kernel compatible protocol buffer
code generator.
When you have this in place, you have to write a very simple logic to
add a new functionality to the debugfs file. Handler would essentially
get pointers to a request struct, and a response struct, and would
need to fill out the response struct.
Are there similar solutions?
What problems might my approach cause?
Is there a better idea for this problem altogether?
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
