http://www.makelinux.net/ldd3/chp-2-sect-3#chp-2-ITERM-4135 this link describes the user space and kernel space communication.
could anyone explain it with a simple user space application program in c that links & communicates(send / receives values) to the kernel object.?
The program insmod, available on most Linux machines (but requiring sudo privileges to run) instructs the kernel to load a specified module (kernel object) through the system call init_module.
More generally, user-space programs communicate with the kernel through these system calls, which are essentially requests to the kernel from user space. Any application you write in C must use system calls in some way to interact with the system (for example, printf uses the write system call under the hood to put characters on the screen).
Just open a file with open(2). The compiler will add code to the application for this call which will put the function arguments on the stack and make it crash in a certain way (see system call). The kernel catches all the crashes and handles them.
Since this is a "good" crash, the kernel will look up which function to invoke, get the arguments from the stack and invoke the function.
The reason for this complicated approach is security: By "crashing", the application completely relinquishes control. The CPU will switch to a different mode, too. In this mode, it can access the hardware (in "application" mode, any access to the hardware leads to an "illegal access" crash which terminates your app).
The open(2) function itself can't do much. Instead, it will check which file system can handle the request and invoke the open function of the file system. File systems are implemented as kernel modules.
Related
OS use kernel mode (privilege mode) and user mode. It seems very reasonable for security reasons. Process cant make any command it wants, only the operation system can make those commands.
On the other hand it take long time all the context switch. change between user to kernel mode and vice versa.
The trap to the operation system take a long time.
I think why the operation system not give the ability to process to run in kernel mode to increase it's performance (this can be very big improve)?
In real time systems this works in the same way?
Thanks.
There are safety and stability reasons, which disallow user-space process to access kernel space functions directly.
Kernel code garantees, that no user-space process(until being executed with root priveleges) can break operating system. This is a vital property of modern OS. Also it is important, that development of user-space apps is much more simple, than kernel modules development.
In case when application needs more perfomance than available for use-space, it is possible to move its code(or part of it) into kernel space. E.g., network protocols and filesystems are implemented as kernel drivers mostly because of perfomance reasons.
Real time applications are more demanding to stability. They also use system calls.
I think there is no sense to do this.
1.) If you want something to be runned in kernel context use kernel module API, what is the problem with that?
2.) Why do you think that it will multiple process speed? Switch between kernel and userspace is just additional registers state save / restore. It will run faster, but i don't think user will even notice it.
I know that software breakpoints in an executable file can work through replacing some assembler instruction at the desired place with another one, which cause interrupt. So debugger can stop execution exactly at this place and replace this instruction with original one and ask user about what to do the next or call some commands and etc.
But code of such executable file is not used by another programs and has only one copy in memory. How can software breakpoints work with a shared libraries? For instance, how software breakpoints work if I set one at some internal function of C-library (as I understand it has only one copy for all the applications, so we cannot just replace some instruction in it)? Are there any "software breakpoints" techniques for that purpose?
The answer for Linux is that the Linux kernel implements COW (Copy-on-Write): If the code of a shared library is written to, the kernel makes a private duplicate copy of the shared page first, remaps internally virtual memory just for that process to the copy, and allows the application to continue. This is completely invisible to userland applications and done entirely in the kernel.
Thus, until the first time a software breakpoint is put into the shared library, its code is indeed shared; But afterwards, not. The process thereafter operates with a dirty but private copy.
This kernel magic is what allows the debugger to not cause every other application to suddenly stop.
On OSes such as VxWorks, however, this is not possible. From personal experience, when I was implementing a GDB remote debug server for VxWorks, I had to forbid my users from ever single-stepping within semTake() and semGive() (the OS semaphore functions), since a) GDB uses software breakpoints in its source-level single-step implementation and b) VxWorks uses a semaphore to protect its breakpoints list...
The unpleasant consequence was an interrupt storm in which a breakpoint would cause an interrupt, and within this interrupt there would be another interrupt, and another and another in an unescapable chain resistant even to Ctrl-Z. The only way out was to power off the machine.
I was asked such a question in an interview:
In windows, suppose there is an exe which depends on some dlls, when you start
the exe, and then the dependent dlls will be loaded, are these dlls
loaded in kernel mode or user mode?
I am not quite sure about the question, not the mention the answer - could you help to explain?
Thanks.
I'm not an expert about how Windows internally works, but for what i know the correct answer is user mode, simply because only the processes related to your Operative System are admitted in the kernel space http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_Programming/User_Mode_vs_Kernel_Mode
Basically if it's not an OS process, it's going to be allocated in the user space.
The question is very imprecise/ambiguous. "In Windows" suggests something but isn't clear what. Likely the interviewer was referring to the Win32 subsystem - i.e. the part of Windows that you usually get to see as an end-user. The last part of the question is even more ambiguous.
Now while process and section objects (in MSDN referred to as MMF, loaded PE images such as .exe and .dll and .sys) are indeed kernel objects and require some assistance from the underlying executive (and memory manager etc) the respective code in the DLL (including that in DllMain) will behave exactly the same as for any other user mode process, when called from a user mode process. That is, each thread that is running code from the DLL will transition to kernel mode to make use of OS services eventually (opening files, loading PE files, creating events etc) or do some stuff in user mode whenever that is sufficient.
Perhaps the interviewer was even interested in the memory ranges that are sometimes referred to as "kernel space" and "user space", traditionally at the 2 GB boundary for 32bit. And yes, DLLs usually end up below the 2 GB boundary, i.e. in "user space", while other shared memory (memory mapped files, MMF) usually end up above that boundary.
It is even possible that the interviewer fell victim to a common misunderstanding about DLLs. The DLL itself is merely a dormant piece of memory, it isn't running anything on its own ever (and yes, this is also true for DllMain). Sure, the loader will take care of all kinds of things such as relocations, but in the end nothing will run without being called explicitly or implicitly (in the context of some thread of the process loading the DLL). So for all practical purposes the question would require you to ask back.
Define "in Windows".
Also "dlls loaded in kernel mode or user mode", does this refer to the code doing the loading or to the end result (i.e. where the code runs or in what memory range it gets loaded)? Parts of that code run in user mode, others in kernel mode.
I wonder whether the interviewer has a clear idea of the concepts s/he is asking about.
Let me add some more information. It seems from the comments on the other answer that people have the same misconception that exists about DLLs also about drivers. Drivers are much closer to the idea of DLLs than to that of EXEs (or ultimately "processes"). The thing is that a driver doesn't do anything on its own most of the time (though it can create system threads to change that). Drivers are not processes and they do not create processes.
The answer is quite obviously User mode for anybody who does any kind of significant application development for windows. Let me explain two things.
DLL
A dynamic link library is closely similar to a regular old link library or .lib. When your application uses a .lib it pastes in function definitions just after compile time. You typically use a .lib to store API's and to modify the functions with out having to rebuild the whole project, just paste new .lib with same name over the old and as long as the interface(function name and parameters) hasn't changed it still works. Great modularity.
A .dll does exactly the same thing however it doesn't require re-linking or any compilation. You can think of a .dll as essentially a .lib which gets compiled to an .exe just the same as applications which use it. Simply put the new .dll which shares the name and function signatures and it all just works. You can update your application simply by replacing .dlls. This is why most windows software consists of .dlls and a few exe's.
The usage of a .dll is done in two ways
Implicit linking
To link this way if you had a .dll userapplication.dll you would have an userapplication.lib which defines all the entry points in the dll. You simply link to the static link library and then include the .dll in the working directory.
Explicit linking
Alernatively you can programmatically load the .dll by first calling LoadLibrary(userapplication.dll) which returns a handle to your .dll. Then GetProcAddress(handle, "FunctionInUserApplicationDll") which returns a function pointer you can use. This way your application can check stuff before attempting to use it. c# is a little different but easier.
USER/KERNEL MODES
Windows has two major modes of execution. User mode and Kernel modes (kernel further divided into system and sessions). For user mode the physical memory address is opaque. User mode makes use of virtual memory which is mapped to real memory spaces. User mode driver's are coincidentally also .dll's. A user mode application typically gets around 4Gb of virtual addressing space to work with. Two different applications can not meaningfully use those address because they are with in context of that application or process. There is no way for a user mode application to know it's physical memory address with out falling back to kernel mode driver. Basically everything your used to programming (unless you develop drivers).
Kernel mode is protected from user mode applications. Most hardware drivers work in the context of kernel mode and typically all windows api's are broken into two categories user and kernel. Kernel mode drivers use kernel mode api's and do not use user mode api's and hence don't user .dll's(You can't even print to a console cause that is a user mode api set). Instead they use .sys files which are drivers and essentially work exactly the same way in user mode. A .sys is an pe format so basically an .exe just like a .dll is like an .exe with out a main() entry point.
So from the askers perspective you have two groups
[kernel/.sys] and [user/.dll or .exe]
There really isn't .exe's in kernel because the operating system does everything not users. When system or another kernel component starts something they do it by calling DriverEntry() method so I guess that is like main().
So this question in this sense is quite simple.
My question is:
What is the flow of execution of an executable file in WINDOWS? (i.e. What happens when we start a application.)
How does the OS integrate with the application to operate or handle the application?
Does it have a central control place that checks execution of each file or process?
Is the process registered in the execution directory? (if any)
What actually happens that makes the file perform its desired task within WINDOWS environment?
All help is appreciated...
There's plenty going on beyond the stages already stated (loading the PE, enumerating the dlls it depends on, calling their entry points and calling the exe entry point).
Probably the earliest action is the OS and the processor collaborating to create a new address space infrastructure (I think essentially a dedicated TLB). The OS initializes a Process Environment Block, with process-wide data (e.g., Process ID and environment variables). It initializes a Thread Environment Block, with thread-specific data (thread id, SEH root handlers, etc). Once an appropriate address is selected for every dll and it is loaded there, re-addressing of exported functions happens by the windows loader. (very briefly - at compile time, the dll cannot know the address at which it will be loaded by every consumer exe. the actual call addresses of its functions is thus determined only at load time). There are initializations of memory pages shared between processes - for windows messages, for example - and I think some initialization of disk-paging structures. there's PLENTY more going on. The main windows component involved is indeed the windows loader, but the kernel and executive are involved. Finally, the exe entry point is called - it is by default BaseProcessStart.
Typically a lot of preparation happens still after that, above the OS level, depending on used frameworks (canonical ones being CRT for native code and the CLR for managed): the framework must initialize its own internal structures to be able to deliver services to the application - memory management, exception handling, I/O, you name it.
A great place to go for such in depth discussions is Windows Internals. You can also dig a bit deeper in forums like SO, but you have to be able to break it down into more focused bits. As phrased, this is really too much for an SO post.
This is high-level and misses many details:
The OS reads the PE Header to find the dlls that the exe depends on and the exe's entry point
The DllMain function in all linked dlls is called with the DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH message
The entry point of the exe is called with the appropriate arguments
There is no "execution directory" or other central control other than the kernel itself. However, there are APIs that allow you to enumerate and query the currently-running processes, such as EnumProcesses.
Your question isn't very clear, but I'll try to explain.
When you open an application, it is loaded into RAM from your disk.
The operating system jumps to the entry point of the application.
The OS provides all the calls required for showing a window, connecting with stuff and receiving user input. It also manages processing time, dividing it evenly between applications.
I just want to ask, I know that standart system calls in Linux are done by int instruction pointing into Interrupt Vector Table. I assume this is similiar on Windows. But, how do you call some higher-level specific system routines? Such as how do you tell Windows to create a window? I know this is handled by the code in the dll, but what actually happend at assembler-instruction level? Does the routine in dll calls software interrupt by int instruction, or is there any different approach to handle this? Thanks.
Making a Win32 call to create a window is not really related to an interrupt. The client application is already linked with the .dll that provides the call which exposes the address for the linker to use. Since you are asking about the difference in calling mechanism, I'm limiting the discussion here to those Win32 calls that are available to any application as opposed to kernel-level calls or device drivers. At an assembly language level, it would be the same as any other function call since most Win32 calls are user-level calls which internally make the needed kernel calls. The linker provides the address of the Win32 function as the target for some sort of branching instruction, the specifics would depend on the compiler.
[Edit]
It looks like you are right about the interrupts and the int. vector table. CodeGuru has a good article with the OS details on how NT kernel calls work. Link:
http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/w-p/system/devicedriverdevelopment/article.php/c8035
Windows doesn't let you call system calls directly because system call numbers can change between builds, if a new system call gets added the others can shift forward or if a system call gets removed others can shift backwards. So to maintain backwards compatability you call the win32 or native functions in DLLs.
Now there are 2 groups of system calls, those serviced by the kernel (ntoskrnl) and by the win32 kernel layer (win32k).
Kernel system call stubs are easily accessible from ntdll.dll, while win32k ones are not exported, they're private within user32.dll. Those stubs contain the system call number and the actual system call instruction which does the job.
So if you wanted to create a window, you'd call CreateWindow in user32.dll, then the extended version CreateWindowEx gets called for backwards compatability, that calls the private system call stub NtUserCreateWindowEx, which invokes code within the win32k window manager.