1da177e4c3
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
193 lines
9.3 KiB
Text
193 lines
9.3 KiB
Text
The Linux Kernel Driver Interface
|
|
(all of your questions answered and then some)
|
|
|
|
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>
|
|
|
|
This is being written to try to explain why Linux does not have a binary
|
|
kernel interface, nor does it have a stable kernel interface. Please
|
|
realize that this article describes the _in kernel_ interfaces, not the
|
|
kernel to userspace interfaces. The kernel to userspace interface is
|
|
the one that application programs use, the syscall interface. That
|
|
interface is _very_ stable over time, and will not break. I have old
|
|
programs that were built on a pre 0.9something kernel that still work
|
|
just fine on the latest 2.6 kernel release. This interface is the one
|
|
that users and application programmers can count on being stable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Summary
|
|
-----------------
|
|
You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and
|
|
you don't even know it. What you want is a stable running driver, and
|
|
you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree. You also
|
|
get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel
|
|
tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature
|
|
operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first
|
|
place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intro
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
It's only the odd person who wants to write a kernel driver that needs
|
|
to worry about the in-kernel interfaces changing. For the majority of
|
|
the world, they neither see this interface, nor do they care about it at
|
|
all.
|
|
|
|
First off, I'm not going to address _any_ legal issues about closed
|
|
source, hidden source, binary blobs, source wrappers, or any other term
|
|
that describes kernel drivers that do not have their source code
|
|
released under the GPL. Please consult a lawyer if you have any legal
|
|
questions, I'm a programmer and hence, I'm just going to be describing
|
|
the technical issues here (not to make light of the legal issues, they
|
|
are real, and you do need to be aware of them at all times.)
|
|
|
|
So, there are two main topics here, binary kernel interfaces and stable
|
|
kernel source interfaces. They both depend on each other, but we will
|
|
discuss the binary stuff first to get it out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Binary Kernel Interface
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
Assuming that we had a stable kernel source interface for the kernel, a
|
|
binary interface would naturally happen too, right? Wrong. Please
|
|
consider the following facts about the Linux kernel:
|
|
- Depending on the version of the C compiler you use, different kernel
|
|
data structures will contain different alignment of structures, and
|
|
possibly include different functions in different ways (putting
|
|
functions inline or not.) The individual function organization
|
|
isn't that important, but the different data structure padding is
|
|
very important.
|
|
- Depending on what kernel build options you select, a wide range of
|
|
different things can be assumed by the kernel:
|
|
- different structures can contain different fields
|
|
- Some functions may not be implemented at all, (i.e. some locks
|
|
compile away to nothing for non-SMP builds.)
|
|
- Parameter passing of variables from function to function can be
|
|
done in different ways (the CONFIG_REGPARM option controls
|
|
this.)
|
|
- Memory within the kernel can be aligned in different ways,
|
|
depending on the build options.
|
|
- Linux runs on a wide range of different processor architectures.
|
|
There is no way that binary drivers from one architecture will run
|
|
on another architecture properly.
|
|
|
|
Now a number of these issues can be addressed by simply compiling your
|
|
module for the exact specific kernel configuration, using the same exact
|
|
C compiler that the kernel was built with. This is sufficient if you
|
|
want to provide a module for a specific release version of a specific
|
|
Linux distribution. But multiply that single build by the number of
|
|
different Linux distributions and the number of different supported
|
|
releases of the Linux distribution and you quickly have a nightmare of
|
|
different build options on different releases. Also realize that each
|
|
Linux distribution release contains a number of different kernels, all
|
|
tuned to different hardware types (different processor types and
|
|
different options), so for even a single release you will need to create
|
|
multiple versions of your module.
|
|
|
|
Trust me, you will go insane over time if you try to support this kind
|
|
of release, I learned this the hard way a long time ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stable Kernel Source Interfaces
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This is a much more "volatile" topic if you talk to people who try to
|
|
keep a Linux kernel driver that is not in the main kernel tree up to
|
|
date over time.
|
|
|
|
Linux kernel development is continuous and at a rapid pace, never
|
|
stopping to slow down. As such, the kernel developers find bugs in
|
|
current interfaces, or figure out a better way to do things. If they do
|
|
that, they then fix the current interfaces to work better. When they do
|
|
so, function names may change, structures may grow or shrink, and
|
|
function parameters may be reworked. If this happens, all of the
|
|
instances of where this interface is used within the kernel are fixed up
|
|
at the same time, ensuring that everything continues to work properly.
|
|
|
|
As a specific examples of this, the in-kernel USB interfaces have
|
|
undergone at least three different reworks over the lifetime of this
|
|
subsystem. These reworks were done to address a number of different
|
|
issues:
|
|
- A change from a synchronous model of data streams to an asynchronous
|
|
one. This reduced the complexity of a number of drivers and
|
|
increased the throughput of all USB drivers such that we are now
|
|
running almost all USB devices at their maximum speed possible.
|
|
- A change was made in the way data packets were allocated from the
|
|
USB core by USB drivers so that all drivers now needed to provide
|
|
more information to the USB core to fix a number of documented
|
|
deadlocks.
|
|
|
|
This is in stark contrast to a number of closed source operating systems
|
|
which have had to maintain their older USB interfaces over time. This
|
|
provides the ability for new developers to accidentally use the old
|
|
interfaces and do things in improper ways, causing the stability of the
|
|
operating system to suffer.
|
|
|
|
In both of these instances, all developers agreed that these were
|
|
important changes that needed to be made, and they were made, with
|
|
relatively little pain. If Linux had to ensure that it preserve a
|
|
stable source interface, a new interface would have been created, and
|
|
the older, broken one would have had to be maintained over time, leading
|
|
to extra work for the USB developers. Since all Linux USB developers do
|
|
their work on their own time, asking programmers to do extra work for no
|
|
gain, for free, is not a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Security issues are also a very important for Linux. When a
|
|
security issue is found, it is fixed in a very short amount of time. A
|
|
number of times this has caused internal kernel interfaces to be
|
|
reworked to prevent the security problem from occurring. When this
|
|
happens, all drivers that use the interfaces were also fixed at the
|
|
same time, ensuring that the security problem was fixed and could not
|
|
come back at some future time accidentally. If the internal interfaces
|
|
were not allowed to change, fixing this kind of security problem and
|
|
insuring that it could not happen again would not be possible.
|
|
|
|
Kernel interfaces are cleaned up over time. If there is no one using a
|
|
current interface, it is deleted. This ensures that the kernel remains
|
|
as small as possible, and that all potential interfaces are tested as
|
|
well as they can be (unused interfaces are pretty much impossible to
|
|
test for validity.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
What to do
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
So, if you have a Linux kernel driver that is not in the main kernel
|
|
tree, what are you, a developer, supposed to do? Releasing a binary
|
|
driver for every different kernel version for every distribution is a
|
|
nightmare, and trying to keep up with an ever changing kernel interface
|
|
is also a rough job.
|
|
|
|
Simple, get your kernel driver into the main kernel tree (remember we
|
|
are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn't fall
|
|
under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech
|
|
<insert link to leech comment from Andrew and Linus here>.) If your
|
|
driver is in the tree, and a kernel interface changes, it will be fixed
|
|
up by the person who did the kernel change in the first place. This
|
|
ensures that your driver is always buildable, and works over time, with
|
|
very little effort on your part.
|
|
|
|
The very good side effects of having your driver in the main kernel tree
|
|
are:
|
|
- The quality of the driver will rise as the maintenance costs (to the
|
|
original developer) will decrease.
|
|
- Other developers will add features to your driver.
|
|
- Other people will find and fix bugs in your driver.
|
|
- Other people will find tuning opportunities in your driver.
|
|
- Other people will update the driver for you when external interface
|
|
changes require it.
|
|
- The driver automatically gets shipped in all Linux distributions
|
|
without having to ask the distros to add it.
|
|
|
|
As Linux supports a larger number of different devices "out of the box"
|
|
than any other operating system, and it supports these devices on more
|
|
different processor architectures than any other operating system, this
|
|
proven type of development model must be doing something right :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
Thanks to Randy Dunlap, Andrew Morton, David Brownell, Hanna Linder,
|
|
Robert Love, and Nishanth Aravamudan for their review and comments on
|
|
early drafts of this paper.
|