How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux? [closed]How does one install a camera driver from a c file, and what is this driver doing?what is the difference between Device driver and kernel moduledoes a user program always use system calls to access a device driverDevice files and drivers of a disk, partition, and filesystem?How to find the driver (module) associated with SATA device on Linux?Where does a device file come from?Locating kernel module from device node major, minor numberinteracting with kernel modules without giving users sudo access?How to check if a given driver kernel module supports a given device?Is it unusual for kernel modules to access system calls?
Part of my house is inexplicably gone
Parsing text written the millitext font
Is tuition reimbursement a good idea if you have to stay with the job
If the pressure inside and outside a balloon balance, then why does air leave when it pops?
What is Gilligan's full Name?
In The Incredibles 2, why does Screenslaver's name use a pun on something that doesn't exist in the 1950s pastiche?
How to create two-week recurring alarms and reminders?
Nth term of Van Eck Sequence
Was planting UN flag on Moon ever discussed?
Mathematica 12 has gotten worse at solving simple equations?
C++ logging library
Why would a home insurer offer a discount based on credit score?
What's the difference between DHCP and NAT? Are they mutually exclusive?
Course development: can I pay someone to make slides for the course?
Forgot passport for Alaska cruise (Anchorage to Vancouver)
Makefile for a simple Debian Repo
How (un)safe is it to ride barefoot?
What is the theme of analysis?
Can I use 220 V outlets on a 15 ampere breaker and wire it up as 110 V?
Prove that the infinite series equals 1
When to use и or а as “and”?
What is this Amiga 2000 mod?
Why do I seem to lose data using this bash pipe construction?
Why does there seem to be an extreme lack of public trashcans in Taiwan?
How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux? [closed]
How does one install a camera driver from a c file, and what is this driver doing?what is the difference between Device driver and kernel moduledoes a user program always use system calls to access a device driverDevice files and drivers of a disk, partition, and filesystem?How to find the driver (module) associated with SATA device on Linux?Where does a device file come from?Locating kernel module from device node major, minor numberinteracting with kernel modules without giving users sudo access?How to check if a given driver kernel module supports a given device?Is it unusual for kernel modules to access system calls?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Assume that I have invented a new file system, and now I want to create a file system driver for it.
How would I implement this file system driver, is this done using a kernel module?
And how can the file system driver access the hard disk, should the file system driver contain code to access the hard disk, or does Linux contain a device driver to access the hard disk that is used by all the file system drivers?
linux filesystems drivers
closed as too broad by Gilles, muru, Michael Homer, jimmij, msp9011 Mar 25 at 10:47
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
Assume that I have invented a new file system, and now I want to create a file system driver for it.
How would I implement this file system driver, is this done using a kernel module?
And how can the file system driver access the hard disk, should the file system driver contain code to access the hard disk, or does Linux contain a device driver to access the hard disk that is used by all the file system drivers?
linux filesystems drivers
closed as too broad by Gilles, muru, Michael Homer, jimmij, msp9011 Mar 25 at 10:47
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
Assume that I have invented a new file system, and now I want to create a file system driver for it.
How would I implement this file system driver, is this done using a kernel module?
And how can the file system driver access the hard disk, should the file system driver contain code to access the hard disk, or does Linux contain a device driver to access the hard disk that is used by all the file system drivers?
linux filesystems drivers
Assume that I have invented a new file system, and now I want to create a file system driver for it.
How would I implement this file system driver, is this done using a kernel module?
And how can the file system driver access the hard disk, should the file system driver contain code to access the hard disk, or does Linux contain a device driver to access the hard disk that is used by all the file system drivers?
linux filesystems drivers
linux filesystems drivers
edited Mar 24 at 23:07
Gilles
558k13411431654
558k13411431654
asked Mar 24 at 13:16
user343344user343344
763
763
closed as too broad by Gilles, muru, Michael Homer, jimmij, msp9011 Mar 25 at 10:47
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as too broad by Gilles, muru, Michael Homer, jimmij, msp9011 Mar 25 at 10:47
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Yes, filesystems in Linux can be implemented as kernel modules. But there is also the FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) interface, which can allow a regular user-space process to act as a filesystem driver. If you're prototyping a new filesystem, implementing it first using the FUSE interface could make the testing and development easier. Once you have the internals of the filesystem worked out in FUSE form, you might then start implementing a performance-optimized kernel module version of it.
Here's some basic information on implementing a filesystem within kernel space. It's rather old (from 1996!), but that should at least give you a basic idea for the kind of things you'll need to do.
If you choose to go to the FUSE route, here's libfuse, the reference implementation of the userspace side of the FUSE interface.
Filesystem driver as a kernel module
Basically, the initialization function of your filesystem driver module needs just to call a register_filesystem()
function, and give it as a parameter a structure that includes a function pointer that identifies the function in your filesystem driver that will be used as the first step in identifying your filesystem type and mounting it. Nothing more happens at that stage.
When a filesystem is being mounted, and either the filesystem type is specified to match your driver, or filesystem type auto-detection is being performed, the kernel's Virtual FileSystem (VFS for short) layer will call that function. It basically says "Here's a pointer to a kernel-level representation of a standard Linux block device. Take a look at it, see if it's something you can handle, and then tell me what you can do with it."
At that point, your driver is supposed to read whatever it needs to verify it's the right driver for the filesystem, and then return a structure that includes pointers to further functions your driver can do with that particular filesystem. Or if the filesystem driver does not recognize the data on the disk, it is supposed to return an appropriate error result, and then VFS will either report a failure to userspace or - if filesystem type auto-detection is being performed - will ask another filesystem driver to try.
The other drivers in the kernel will provide the standard block device interface, so the filesystem driver won't have to implement hardware support. Basically, the filesystem driver can read and write disk blocks using standard kernel-level functions with the device pointer given to it.
The VFS layer expects the filesystem driver to make a number of standard functions available to the VFS layer; a few of these are mandatory in order for the VFS layer to do anything meaningful with the filesystem, others are optional and you can just return a NULL in place of a pointer to such an optional function.
1
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
add a comment |
Yes a kernel driver can manage a file-system .
The best solution to mock up , prototype a file-system is to use FUSE . And after you can think about transform it into a kernel driver .
Wikipedia =>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace
Source => https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse
a tutorial => https://developer.ibm.com/articles/l-fuse/
add a comment |
Yes this would typically be done using a kernel driver that can either be loaded as a kernel module or compiled into the kernel.
You can check out similar filesystem drivers and how they work here.
These drivers likely use internal kernel functions to access storage devices as blocks of bytes but you could also use blockdevices as exposed by drivers in the block devices and character devices folders.
add a comment |
You can use fuse, to make a user-land file-system, or write a kernel module.
It is easier to do with fuse, as you have a choice of languages, and won't crash the kernel (and therefore the whole system).
Kernel modules can be faster, but the first rule of optimisation is: Don't do it until you have tested working code. The second is like it: Don't do it until you have evidence that it is too slow. And the third: Don't keep it unless you have evidence that it makes it faster/smaller.
And yes the kernel already has drivers for the hardware, you don't re-implement them.
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
1
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd afterpivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
A normal/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve/init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's/init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, filesystems in Linux can be implemented as kernel modules. But there is also the FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) interface, which can allow a regular user-space process to act as a filesystem driver. If you're prototyping a new filesystem, implementing it first using the FUSE interface could make the testing and development easier. Once you have the internals of the filesystem worked out in FUSE form, you might then start implementing a performance-optimized kernel module version of it.
Here's some basic information on implementing a filesystem within kernel space. It's rather old (from 1996!), but that should at least give you a basic idea for the kind of things you'll need to do.
If you choose to go to the FUSE route, here's libfuse, the reference implementation of the userspace side of the FUSE interface.
Filesystem driver as a kernel module
Basically, the initialization function of your filesystem driver module needs just to call a register_filesystem()
function, and give it as a parameter a structure that includes a function pointer that identifies the function in your filesystem driver that will be used as the first step in identifying your filesystem type and mounting it. Nothing more happens at that stage.
When a filesystem is being mounted, and either the filesystem type is specified to match your driver, or filesystem type auto-detection is being performed, the kernel's Virtual FileSystem (VFS for short) layer will call that function. It basically says "Here's a pointer to a kernel-level representation of a standard Linux block device. Take a look at it, see if it's something you can handle, and then tell me what you can do with it."
At that point, your driver is supposed to read whatever it needs to verify it's the right driver for the filesystem, and then return a structure that includes pointers to further functions your driver can do with that particular filesystem. Or if the filesystem driver does not recognize the data on the disk, it is supposed to return an appropriate error result, and then VFS will either report a failure to userspace or - if filesystem type auto-detection is being performed - will ask another filesystem driver to try.
The other drivers in the kernel will provide the standard block device interface, so the filesystem driver won't have to implement hardware support. Basically, the filesystem driver can read and write disk blocks using standard kernel-level functions with the device pointer given to it.
The VFS layer expects the filesystem driver to make a number of standard functions available to the VFS layer; a few of these are mandatory in order for the VFS layer to do anything meaningful with the filesystem, others are optional and you can just return a NULL in place of a pointer to such an optional function.
1
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
add a comment |
Yes, filesystems in Linux can be implemented as kernel modules. But there is also the FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) interface, which can allow a regular user-space process to act as a filesystem driver. If you're prototyping a new filesystem, implementing it first using the FUSE interface could make the testing and development easier. Once you have the internals of the filesystem worked out in FUSE form, you might then start implementing a performance-optimized kernel module version of it.
Here's some basic information on implementing a filesystem within kernel space. It's rather old (from 1996!), but that should at least give you a basic idea for the kind of things you'll need to do.
If you choose to go to the FUSE route, here's libfuse, the reference implementation of the userspace side of the FUSE interface.
Filesystem driver as a kernel module
Basically, the initialization function of your filesystem driver module needs just to call a register_filesystem()
function, and give it as a parameter a structure that includes a function pointer that identifies the function in your filesystem driver that will be used as the first step in identifying your filesystem type and mounting it. Nothing more happens at that stage.
When a filesystem is being mounted, and either the filesystem type is specified to match your driver, or filesystem type auto-detection is being performed, the kernel's Virtual FileSystem (VFS for short) layer will call that function. It basically says "Here's a pointer to a kernel-level representation of a standard Linux block device. Take a look at it, see if it's something you can handle, and then tell me what you can do with it."
At that point, your driver is supposed to read whatever it needs to verify it's the right driver for the filesystem, and then return a structure that includes pointers to further functions your driver can do with that particular filesystem. Or if the filesystem driver does not recognize the data on the disk, it is supposed to return an appropriate error result, and then VFS will either report a failure to userspace or - if filesystem type auto-detection is being performed - will ask another filesystem driver to try.
The other drivers in the kernel will provide the standard block device interface, so the filesystem driver won't have to implement hardware support. Basically, the filesystem driver can read and write disk blocks using standard kernel-level functions with the device pointer given to it.
The VFS layer expects the filesystem driver to make a number of standard functions available to the VFS layer; a few of these are mandatory in order for the VFS layer to do anything meaningful with the filesystem, others are optional and you can just return a NULL in place of a pointer to such an optional function.
1
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
add a comment |
Yes, filesystems in Linux can be implemented as kernel modules. But there is also the FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) interface, which can allow a regular user-space process to act as a filesystem driver. If you're prototyping a new filesystem, implementing it first using the FUSE interface could make the testing and development easier. Once you have the internals of the filesystem worked out in FUSE form, you might then start implementing a performance-optimized kernel module version of it.
Here's some basic information on implementing a filesystem within kernel space. It's rather old (from 1996!), but that should at least give you a basic idea for the kind of things you'll need to do.
If you choose to go to the FUSE route, here's libfuse, the reference implementation of the userspace side of the FUSE interface.
Filesystem driver as a kernel module
Basically, the initialization function of your filesystem driver module needs just to call a register_filesystem()
function, and give it as a parameter a structure that includes a function pointer that identifies the function in your filesystem driver that will be used as the first step in identifying your filesystem type and mounting it. Nothing more happens at that stage.
When a filesystem is being mounted, and either the filesystem type is specified to match your driver, or filesystem type auto-detection is being performed, the kernel's Virtual FileSystem (VFS for short) layer will call that function. It basically says "Here's a pointer to a kernel-level representation of a standard Linux block device. Take a look at it, see if it's something you can handle, and then tell me what you can do with it."
At that point, your driver is supposed to read whatever it needs to verify it's the right driver for the filesystem, and then return a structure that includes pointers to further functions your driver can do with that particular filesystem. Or if the filesystem driver does not recognize the data on the disk, it is supposed to return an appropriate error result, and then VFS will either report a failure to userspace or - if filesystem type auto-detection is being performed - will ask another filesystem driver to try.
The other drivers in the kernel will provide the standard block device interface, so the filesystem driver won't have to implement hardware support. Basically, the filesystem driver can read and write disk blocks using standard kernel-level functions with the device pointer given to it.
The VFS layer expects the filesystem driver to make a number of standard functions available to the VFS layer; a few of these are mandatory in order for the VFS layer to do anything meaningful with the filesystem, others are optional and you can just return a NULL in place of a pointer to such an optional function.
Yes, filesystems in Linux can be implemented as kernel modules. But there is also the FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) interface, which can allow a regular user-space process to act as a filesystem driver. If you're prototyping a new filesystem, implementing it first using the FUSE interface could make the testing and development easier. Once you have the internals of the filesystem worked out in FUSE form, you might then start implementing a performance-optimized kernel module version of it.
Here's some basic information on implementing a filesystem within kernel space. It's rather old (from 1996!), but that should at least give you a basic idea for the kind of things you'll need to do.
If you choose to go to the FUSE route, here's libfuse, the reference implementation of the userspace side of the FUSE interface.
Filesystem driver as a kernel module
Basically, the initialization function of your filesystem driver module needs just to call a register_filesystem()
function, and give it as a parameter a structure that includes a function pointer that identifies the function in your filesystem driver that will be used as the first step in identifying your filesystem type and mounting it. Nothing more happens at that stage.
When a filesystem is being mounted, and either the filesystem type is specified to match your driver, or filesystem type auto-detection is being performed, the kernel's Virtual FileSystem (VFS for short) layer will call that function. It basically says "Here's a pointer to a kernel-level representation of a standard Linux block device. Take a look at it, see if it's something you can handle, and then tell me what you can do with it."
At that point, your driver is supposed to read whatever it needs to verify it's the right driver for the filesystem, and then return a structure that includes pointers to further functions your driver can do with that particular filesystem. Or if the filesystem driver does not recognize the data on the disk, it is supposed to return an appropriate error result, and then VFS will either report a failure to userspace or - if filesystem type auto-detection is being performed - will ask another filesystem driver to try.
The other drivers in the kernel will provide the standard block device interface, so the filesystem driver won't have to implement hardware support. Basically, the filesystem driver can read and write disk blocks using standard kernel-level functions with the device pointer given to it.
The VFS layer expects the filesystem driver to make a number of standard functions available to the VFS layer; a few of these are mandatory in order for the VFS layer to do anything meaningful with the filesystem, others are optional and you can just return a NULL in place of a pointer to such an optional function.
edited Mar 24 at 21:58
answered Mar 24 at 14:35
telcoMtelcoM
23.4k12761
23.4k12761
1
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
add a comment |
1
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
1
1
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
This is a pretty good answer though to fully answer the question as stated you'd also need to say a bit about the functionality the block device layer provides for the file system layer to build upon.
– kasperd
Mar 24 at 21:06
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
I sort of alluded to that with the "here's a pointer to a standard block device" bit, but good point; I expanded on that.
– telcoM
Mar 24 at 21:59
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
This answer, specifically the description of what happens in what order, is divine. Is there some sort of book/website I could read that has descriptions like that for all of "how linux works"?
– Adam Barnes
Mar 25 at 0:10
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
You might be interested in Linux Kernel Internals or Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Edition. And of course, there's the option of reading the actual source code.
– telcoM
Mar 25 at 0:16
add a comment |
Yes a kernel driver can manage a file-system .
The best solution to mock up , prototype a file-system is to use FUSE . And after you can think about transform it into a kernel driver .
Wikipedia =>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace
Source => https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse
a tutorial => https://developer.ibm.com/articles/l-fuse/
add a comment |
Yes a kernel driver can manage a file-system .
The best solution to mock up , prototype a file-system is to use FUSE . And after you can think about transform it into a kernel driver .
Wikipedia =>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace
Source => https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse
a tutorial => https://developer.ibm.com/articles/l-fuse/
add a comment |
Yes a kernel driver can manage a file-system .
The best solution to mock up , prototype a file-system is to use FUSE . And after you can think about transform it into a kernel driver .
Wikipedia =>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace
Source => https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse
a tutorial => https://developer.ibm.com/articles/l-fuse/
Yes a kernel driver can manage a file-system .
The best solution to mock up , prototype a file-system is to use FUSE . And after you can think about transform it into a kernel driver .
Wikipedia =>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace
Source => https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse
a tutorial => https://developer.ibm.com/articles/l-fuse/
answered Mar 24 at 14:00
EchoMike444EchoMike444
1,14027
1,14027
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes this would typically be done using a kernel driver that can either be loaded as a kernel module or compiled into the kernel.
You can check out similar filesystem drivers and how they work here.
These drivers likely use internal kernel functions to access storage devices as blocks of bytes but you could also use blockdevices as exposed by drivers in the block devices and character devices folders.
add a comment |
Yes this would typically be done using a kernel driver that can either be loaded as a kernel module or compiled into the kernel.
You can check out similar filesystem drivers and how they work here.
These drivers likely use internal kernel functions to access storage devices as blocks of bytes but you could also use blockdevices as exposed by drivers in the block devices and character devices folders.
add a comment |
Yes this would typically be done using a kernel driver that can either be loaded as a kernel module or compiled into the kernel.
You can check out similar filesystem drivers and how they work here.
These drivers likely use internal kernel functions to access storage devices as blocks of bytes but you could also use blockdevices as exposed by drivers in the block devices and character devices folders.
Yes this would typically be done using a kernel driver that can either be loaded as a kernel module or compiled into the kernel.
You can check out similar filesystem drivers and how they work here.
These drivers likely use internal kernel functions to access storage devices as blocks of bytes but you could also use blockdevices as exposed by drivers in the block devices and character devices folders.
answered Mar 24 at 13:31
ErikErik
31
31
add a comment |
add a comment |
You can use fuse, to make a user-land file-system, or write a kernel module.
It is easier to do with fuse, as you have a choice of languages, and won't crash the kernel (and therefore the whole system).
Kernel modules can be faster, but the first rule of optimisation is: Don't do it until you have tested working code. The second is like it: Don't do it until you have evidence that it is too slow. And the third: Don't keep it unless you have evidence that it makes it faster/smaller.
And yes the kernel already has drivers for the hardware, you don't re-implement them.
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
1
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd afterpivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
A normal/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve/init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's/init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
add a comment |
You can use fuse, to make a user-land file-system, or write a kernel module.
It is easier to do with fuse, as you have a choice of languages, and won't crash the kernel (and therefore the whole system).
Kernel modules can be faster, but the first rule of optimisation is: Don't do it until you have tested working code. The second is like it: Don't do it until you have evidence that it is too slow. And the third: Don't keep it unless you have evidence that it makes it faster/smaller.
And yes the kernel already has drivers for the hardware, you don't re-implement them.
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
1
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd afterpivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
A normal/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve/init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's/init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
add a comment |
You can use fuse, to make a user-land file-system, or write a kernel module.
It is easier to do with fuse, as you have a choice of languages, and won't crash the kernel (and therefore the whole system).
Kernel modules can be faster, but the first rule of optimisation is: Don't do it until you have tested working code. The second is like it: Don't do it until you have evidence that it is too slow. And the third: Don't keep it unless you have evidence that it makes it faster/smaller.
And yes the kernel already has drivers for the hardware, you don't re-implement them.
You can use fuse, to make a user-land file-system, or write a kernel module.
It is easier to do with fuse, as you have a choice of languages, and won't crash the kernel (and therefore the whole system).
Kernel modules can be faster, but the first rule of optimisation is: Don't do it until you have tested working code. The second is like it: Don't do it until you have evidence that it is too slow. And the third: Don't keep it unless you have evidence that it makes it faster/smaller.
And yes the kernel already has drivers for the hardware, you don't re-implement them.
answered Mar 24 at 14:14
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
13k52663
13k52663
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
1
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd afterpivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
A normal/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve/init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's/init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
add a comment |
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
1
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd afterpivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
A normal/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve/init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's/init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.
– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
There are major downsides to FUSE other than performance: it's hard to use it for your root filesystem. (Maybe possible with an initrd, but the FUSE binary couldn't be freed after booting because it would still be executing from the ramdisk.)
– Peter Cordes
Mar 24 at 19:52
1
1
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@PeterCordes It couldn't be freed, but that doesn't mean it can't be unlinked. If there's still a reference to it, it'll be kept in memory regardless of whether or not you left the initramfs and deleted the underlying binary.
– forest
Mar 25 at 8:39
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd after
pivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
@forest: right, therefore you can't unmount the initrd after
pivot_root
, because there are still busy inodes in the initramfs.– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:53
A normal
/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve /init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's /init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
A normal
/init
started from an initramfs will (I think) execve /init
after pivot_root, to transfer control to the real root FS's /init
. But a FUSE binary couldn't replace itself with execve if access to the root FS depended on the FUSE process responding to the kernel. Well maybe by priming the pagecache first, but that doesn't sound reliable.– Peter Cordes
Mar 25 at 8:58
add a comment |