I am trying to complete the picture of how the PC and the OS interacts together. And I am at point, where I am little out of guess when it comes to device drivers.
Please, don´t write things like its too complicated, or you don´t need to know when using high programming laguage and winapi functions. I want to know, it´s for study purposes.
So, the very basic structure of how OS and PC (by PC I mean of course HW) is how I see it is that all other than direct CPU commands, which can CPU do on itself (arithmetic operation, its registers access and memory access) must pass thru OS. Mainly becouse from ring level 3 you cannot use in and out intructions which are used for acesing other HW. I know that there is MMIO,but it must be set by port comunication first.
It was not like this all the time. Even I am bit young to remember MSDOS, I know you could access HW directly, becouse there ws no limitation, no ring mode. So you could to write string to diplay use wheather DOS function, or directly acess video card memory and write it by yourself.
But as OS developed, there is no longer this possibility. But it is fine, since OS now handles all the HW comunication, and frankly it more convinient and much more safe (I would say the only option) in multitasking environment. So nowdays you instead of using int instructions to use BIOS mapped function or DOS function you call dll which internally than handles everything you don´t need to know about.
I understand this. I also undrstand that device drivers is the piece of code that runs in ring level 0, so it can do all the HW interactions. But what I don´t understand is connection between OS and device driver. Let´s take a example - I want to make a sound card make a sound. So I call windows API to acess sound card, but what happens than? Does windows call device drivers to do so?
But if it does call device driver, does it mean, that all device drivers which can be called by winAPI function, must have routines named in some specific way? I mean, when I have new sound card, must its drivers have functions named same as the old one? So Windows can actually call the same function from its perspective? But if Windows have predefined sets of functions requored by device drivers, that it cannot use new drivers that doesent existed before last version of OS came out.
Please, help me understand this mess. I am really getting mad. Thanks.
A Windows device driver is a bit like a DLL: except that instead of an application dynamic linking/loading it, it's the O/S that dynamic links/loads it.
Registry entries tell the O/S what device drivers exist (so that the O/S knows which device drivers to dynamic-link/load).
The device drivers run in ring 0. In ring zero, they (device drivers) don't have access to (can't link to or use) Windows APIs: instead they have access to various NT kernel APIs.
But if it does call device driver, does it mean, that all device drivers which can be called by winAPI function, must have routines named in some specific way? I mean, when I have new sound card, must its drivers have functions named same as the old one? So Windows can actually call the same function from its perspective?
Basically yes. All the device drivers within a given type or class (e.g. all video drivers, or all disk drivers) have a similar API, which is invoked by the O/S (and/or invoked by higher-level drivers, for example disk drivers are used/invoked by file system drivers).
The Windows Device Driver Kit defines the various APIs and includes sample drivers for the various types of device.
But if Windows have predefined sets of functions requored by device drivers, that it cannot use new drivers that doesent existed before last version of OS came out.
The O/S is dynamic-linking to the device driver functions: because device driver APIs are predefined, device drivers are interchangeable as far as the O/S is concerned; new device drivers can be written, provided they support (are backward-compatible with) the standard device driver API.
The dynamic-linking mechanism is very similar to the way in which COM objects or C++ classes implement any predefined pure-abstract interface: a header file in the DDK declares the pure-abstract interface (like virtual functions), device drivers implement these functions, and the O/S loads the drivers and invokes these functions.
The basics:
Please note that this explanation is simplified and sometime only true for most cases and not all.
Most HW devices you will ever encounter will have these basic operations:
Write to memory(or Registers) on them.
Read from memory(or Registers) on them.
This is enough to control the HW, to give it the data it needs, and to get the data you want from it.
These memory areas are mapped by the BIOS and/or the OS to the Physical memory range on your PC (which may in turn be accessed by your driver.)
So we now have two operations READ and WRITE that the device driver knows to do.
In addition, the driver can read and write in a manner that does not involve the cpu. This is called Direct Memory Access (DMA) and usually performed by your HW.
The last type of operation is called INTERRUPTS and is meant for your HW to notify your driver of something that just happend. This is usually done by the HW interrupting the CPU and calling your driver to perform some operation in high priority. For example: an image is ready in the HW to be read by the driver.
Related
Never develop any driver before.
Anyway I'm now writing 2 simple windows kernel mode drivers, and the 2 drivers will be installed onto 2 different devices which connect to 2 different buses(ISA bus / PCI bus), and somehow the 2 drivers need to talk to each other and data exchange is also expected, is there any efficient way to achieve that??
Kernel event might be able to enable the synchronization, but how about the data exchange?
In user mode, pipe/socket might be an option, but in kernel mode, is there a counterpart of named pipe or something? Google said that there's no documented API for kernel mode pipe usage...
I'm not quite familiar with windows driver framework, hope I'm making sense..
thanks!
There is IRP_MJ_INTERNAL_DEVICE_CONTROL for communication between kernel-mode components. Driver #1 opens Driver #2 by its name and sends internal IOCTLs with input or/and output data.
#Harry Johnston: You do need to be careful about writing to a shared memory location. I presume you were responding with the context of implementing a serial buffer between the two devices (only one device can write, and the other can only read), but it should obviously be added that you should approach shared memory locations between devices with caution, especially if there is going to be frequent writes to that location by both devices and cause undefined behavior or lock-ups from interrupts being serviced seemingly unexpectedly.
Part1:
To the linux/unix experts out there, Could you please help me understanding about device drivers. As i understood, a driver is a piece of code that directly interacts with hardware and exposes some apis to access the device. My question is where does this piece of code runs, User space or Kernel space?
I know that code that is executed in kernel space has some extra privileges like accessing any memory location(pls correct if i'm wrong). If we install a third party driver and if it runs in kernel space, wouldn't this be harmful for the whole system? How any OS handles this?
Part2:
Lets take an example of USB device(camera, keyboard..), How the system recognizes these devices? how does the system know which driver to install? How does the driver know the address of the device to read and write the data?
(if this is too big to answer here, pls provide links of some good documentation or tutorials.., I've tried and couldn't find answers for these. pls help)
Part 1
On linux, drivers run in kernel space. And yes, as you state there a significant security implications to this. Most exceptions in drivers will take down the kernel, potentially corrupt kernel memory (with all manner of consequences). Buggy drivers also have an impact on system security, and malicious drivers can do absolutely anything they want.
A trend seen on MacOSX and Window NT kernels is user-space drivers. Microsoft has for some time been pushing the Windows Userspace Driver Framework, and MacOSX has long provided user-space APIs for Firewire and USB drivers, and class-compliant drivers for many USB peripherals. it is quite unusual to install 3rd party kernel-mode device drivers on MacOSX.
Arguably, the bad reputation Windows used to have for kernel panics can be attributed to the (often poor quality) kernel mode drivers that came with just about every mobile phone, camera and printer.
Linux graphics drivers are pretty much all implemented in user-space with a minimal kernel-resident portion, and Fuse allows the implementation of filing systems in user-space.
Part 2
USB, Firewire, MCI (and also PCI-e) all have enumeration mechanisms through which a bus driver can match the device to a driver. In practice this means that all devices expose metadata describing what they are.
Contained within the metadata is a DeviceID, VendorID and a description of functions the device provides and associated ClassIDs. ClassIDs facilitate generic Class Drivers.
Conceptually, the operating system will attempt to find a driver that specifically supports the VendorID and DeviceID, and then fall back to one that supports the ClassID(s).
Matching devices to drivers is a core concept at the heart of the Linux Device Model, and exact matching criteria used for matching is match() function in the specific bus driver.
Once device drivers are bound to a device, it uses the bus-driver (or addressing information given by it) to perform read and writes. In the case of PCI and Firewire, this is a memory mapped IO address. For USB it bus addressing information.
The Linux Documentation tree provides some insight into the design of the Linux Device Model, but isn't really entry-level reading.
I'd also recommend reading Linux Device Driver (3rd Edition)
I wonder if anyone can help at all, a bit of a specialist problem this.
I have an application that needs to read and analyse a number of USB devices (not simultaneously, they are each run in seperate tests and could in theory be run on different machines).
Each of the USB devices is based on the USB HID class, and are manufactured by different companies, none of these USB devices are designed to be run on PC, but are meant for a different platform, however for the purposes of testing the devices the client has requested that the test application is run from a PC.
Some of the devices will start up, be recognised by windows which will initialise and start them correctly using the generic HID class driver built into windows, the devices will then start sending correct data packets of the data to be tested.
Some of the devices will start up, be recognised by windows which will try to start them but fail to fully to initialise them leaving them in a half initialised state. This is fine, as I can use my beagle protocol analyser to capture the initialisation packets from the genuine platform and then use the LibUSBDotNet library to replicate the remaining packets in the initialisation sequence and get them to start sending the packets correctly.
The problem I have is with one particular device (though there are some more I haven't tested yet so it's quite possible one of those may also exhibit the same problem). The issue is the the Windows HID class driver recognises the device and trys to initialise and start it, this works after a fashion and the device starts sending data.
The problem is that the data being sent is different to that which is sent to the genuine platform (containing only a subset of the full data). It's as though windows has initialised the device into a different mode.
When I capture the initialisation packets from both the PC and the genuine platform using my USB protocol analyser I see that Windows is sending some slightly different initialisation packets. Using LibUSBDotNet to resend the correct packets once Windows has already started the device seems to have no effect.
My problem is that I need to stop windows from trying to initialise the device using the standard HID class driver, I've tried removing the driver in Device Manager but it still initialises it (and the driver is magically reassigned in device manager). I've done some investigation and there are possible alternatives:
Create a specific driver which windows will assign to the particular VID/PID of the device but that does nothing, then I can use LibUSBDotNet to send the correct initialisation sequence to the device from within my own code.
Use something like WinUSB to create a proper driver for the device (or possibly to create a "dead" driver like 1.
Will a driver with a specific VID/PID defined be used by windows in preference to it's inbuilt USB HID class driver? If not then I would be wasting my time going down this route?
Note, my mac initialises the problem device correctly, and I've asked the question of the client whether the application can be developed for Mac and their answer was frustrating Windows only.
I've no experience in writing proper Windows drivers, though I have experience in talking to USB at a relatively low level (so that part doesn't worry too much). Can anyone suggest a good course of action (before I potentially waste weeks investigating how to write drivers for the PC only to find my selected course of action can't deliver what I required).
Any help or suggest much appreciated.
Thanks,
Rich
Added after trying suggestions below:
I tried using the LibUsbDotNet inf wizard to create the necessary files and install them and this appeared to work - certainly the device was now appearing in Device Manager as a libusb-win32 device - not HID device and the associated driver was libusb driver. Even after doing this the device still seems to become initialised and start sending the wrong type of data packets although now those packets are no longer handled by the class driver and are just lost.
I also came across Zadig which has a similar inf creation wizard for WinUSB and this had exactly the same result.
A colleague has suggested that it might not be windows itself that is switching the device into this mode, rather the device identifying that it is connected to a windows machine and switching itself into this mode. I suspect this is the case, in which case I am stuck - time to have another conversation with the client.
Many thanks for the help.
You're using libusb-win32 as a filter driver; that is, the HidUsb device driver is assigned and loaded for your device, but then the libusb-win32 driver is loaded on top and gives you unobstructed access to the hardware.
If you don't want a HidUsb (or any other class driver) to perform any communication "on your behalf", simply associate libusb-win32 as a device driver with your hardware. For this, you'd have to create an .INF file associating it with the VID/PID/Revision of each USB device. If I recall correctly, libusb-win32 even comes with a utility to generate such .INF files.
If you install this .INF file e.g. with PnpUtil.exe (available on Vista or higher), you might still run into issues where, although you're a better match than the generic HID driver, the HID driver is still selected.
The generic HID driver matches devices by their Compatible IDs (i.e. by a USB interface class) while you'd be matching by Hardware IDs (which have higher priority). However, Windows might give priority to other aspects, such as your driver being unsigned. Read: How Windows Selects Drivers
Luckily, even in that scenario, signing drivers with a self-generated certificate (use CertUtil.exe, MakeCat.exe and SignTool.exe) is not too difficult.
inHi, this question is fast, but from my point of view its pretty hard. I have been messing with implementing USB device built from MCU. So I found project called V-USB which is software-emulated USB interface for Atmel MCUs. But this is not so important.
The question is, on their site, they say that using custom USB class, you can simply write host software on Unix, but you need driver DLL for Windows. The problem is, they dont explain why.
So, please, why? I dont know Unix based systems, but I thought that the very basics of different OS are the same becouse thay rise from the same hardware, and even Unix cannot do HW IO operations from user mode.
I know about libraries for USB communication like LibUSB and so, but I want to know the very reason why thay say that its easy on Unix. Thanks.
EDIT:
Thanks for answer, but can I have further question? How this everything is a file works? I mean, my vision of driver on Windows is a program running in kernel mode, thus allowed to access CPU IO ports, which either provides functions to OS by some standarts, to allow Windows to use it (for example HDD driver must be accessible from filesystem driver by standardised set of functions, to allow any HDD work the same).
With this all you have to do is call drivers via WinAPI function or directly call its functions. But USB implements new feature which is different classes. So there is main USB root driver to handle USB and calling right secondary drivers for right devices. Than there is the same procedure, you just call your USB driver.
But if in Unix everything is a file, how are handled different classes? I just cannot imahine how this works in some analogy to Windows way. Does that file represents the way to communicate with USB root driver?
Everything in UNIX is a file, which supports simple operations. No matter if you are communicating via a terminal or a via a usb device, everything is a stream of bytes to a file.
* read
* write
* lseek
* close
I am doing an OS experiment. Until now, all my code utilized the real mode BIOS interrupts to manipulate the hard disk and floppy. But once my code enables Protected Mode, all the real mode BIOS interrupt service routines won't be available.
I have a feeling that I need to do some hardware drivers now. Am I right? Is this why an OS is so difficult to develop?
I know that hardware is controlled by reading from and writing to certain control or data registers. For example, I know that the "Command Block Registers" of a hard disk range from 0x1F0 to 0x1F7. I am wondering whether the register addresses of so many different hardware devices are consistent on different platforms? Or do I have to detect that before using them? How would I do that?
Since I am not sure about how to read/write a floppy or a hard disk in Protected Mode, I have to use BIOS interrupts to load all my necessary kernel files from the floppy before entering protected mode. What could I do if my kernel file exceeds the real mode 1M space limit?
How do I read/write a hard disk when the CPU is in Protected Mode?
I have a feeling that I need to do some hardware drivers now. Am I right?
Strictly speaking; (and depending on your requirements) "need" may be too strong - in theory you can switch back to real mode to use BIOS functions, or use a virtual8086 monitor, or write an interpreter that interprets the firmware's instructions instead of executing them directly.
However, the BIOS is awful (designed for an "only one thing can happen at a time" environment that is completely unsuitable for modern systems where its expected that all devices are able to do useful work at the same time), and the BIOS is deprecated (replaced by UEFI), and it's hard to call something an OS when it doesn't have control over the hardware (because the firmware still has control of the hardware).
Note that if you do continue using BIOS functions; the state of various pieces of hardware (interrupt controller, PCI configuration space for various devices, any PCI bridges, timer/s, etc) has to match the expectations of the BIOS. What this means is that you will either be forced to accept huge limitations (e.g. never being able to use IO APICs, etc. properly) because it will break BIOS functions used by other pre-existing code, or you will be forced to do a huge amount of work to make the BIOS happy (emulating various pieces of hardware so the BIOS thinks the hardware is still in the state it expects even though it's not).
In other words; if you want an OS that's good then you do need to write drivers; but if you only want an OS that doesn't work on modern computers (UEFI), has severe performance problems ("only one thing can happen at a time"), is significantly harder to improve, doesn't support any devices that the BIOS doesn't support (e.g. sound cards), and doesn't support any kind of "hot-plug" (e.g. plugging in a USB device), then you don't need to write drivers.
Is this why an OS is so difficult to develop?
A bad OS is easy to develop. For example, something that is as horrible as MS-DOS (but not compatible with MS-DOS) could probably be slapped together in 1 month.
What makes an OS difficult to develop is making it good. Things like caring about security, trying to get acceptable performance, supporting multi-CPU, providing fault tolerance, trying to make it more future-proof/extensible, providing a nice GUI, creating well thought-out standards (for APIs, etc), and power management - these are what makes an OS difficult.
Device drivers add to the difficulty. Before you can write drivers you'll need support for things that drivers depend on (memory management, IRQ handling, etc - possibly including scheduler and some kind of communication); then something to auto-detect devices (e.g. to scan PCI configuration space) and try to start the drivers for whatever was detected (possibly/hopefully from file system or initial RAM disk, with the ability to add/unload/replace drivers without rebooting); and something to manage the tree of devices - e.g. so that you know which "child devices" will be effected when you put a "parent device" to sleep (or the "parent device" has hardware faults, or its driver crashes, or the device is unplugged). Of course then you'd need to write the device drivers, where the difficulty depends on the device itself (e.g. a device driver for a NVidia GPU is probably harder to write than a device driver for a RS232 serial port controller).
For storage devices themselves (assuming "80x86 PC") there's about 8 standards that matter (ATA/ATAPI, AHCI and NVMe; then OHCI, UHCI, eHCI and xHCI for USB controllers, then the USB mass storage device spec). However, there is also various RAID controllers and/or SCSI controllers where there's no standard (each of these controllers need their own driver), and some obsolete stuff (floppy controller, tape drives that plugged into floppy controller or parallel port, three proprietary CD-ROM interfaces that were built into sound cards).
Please understand that supporting all of this isn't the goal. The goal should be to provide things device drivers depend on (described above), then provide specifications that describe the device driver interfaces (possibly/hopefully including things like IO priorities and synchronization, and notifications for device/media removal, error handling, etc) so that other people can write device drivers for you. Once that's done you might implement a few specific device drivers yourself (e.g. maybe just AHCI initially - everything else could be left until much later or until someone else writes it).
You don't necessarily HAVE to write drivers. You could drop back into real mode to call the BIOS service, and then hop back into protected mode when you're done. This is essentially how DPMI DOS extenders (DOS4GW, Causeway, etc) work.
The source code for the Causeway DOS extender is public domain, you can look at that for a reference. http://www.devoresoftware.com/freesource/cwsrc.htm