The SCSI reference manual defines two types of sense data formats - fixed and variable descriptor-based ones (chapter 2.4). The "Control Mode Page (0Ah)" (4.3.8), which is supposed to be returned as a response to the MODE SENSE SCSI command, contains a D_SENSE bit, which is defined as:
D_SENSE (DESCRIPTOR FORMAT SENSE DATA) bit
0 A descriptor format sense data (D_SENSE) bit set to zero specifies that the device server shall return the fixed format
sense data when returning sense data in the same I_T_L_Q nexus transaction as a CHECK CONDITION status.
1 A D_SENSE bit set to one specifies that the device server shall return descriptor format sense data when returning
sense data in the same I_T_L_Q nexus transaction as a CHECK CONDITION status, except as defined in 2.4.1.
My question is about this bit interpretation on the SCSI target side - is the target server obligated to return sense data in the descriptor format if this bit is 1? Or it's just a possibility to return this data in any format it wants?
The first byte of the sense data can be used to determine its format, so the SCSI initiator doesn't actually need the D_SENSE bit value to decide how to decode the received sense data.
I'm asking this question cause I'm working on some piece of software which is supposed to simulate a SCSI target, so I need to digest multiple SCSI documents to make it right.
If the SCSI target implements the ability to set this bit it must be able to return either of the sense formats. The SCSI target may choose to only provide this bit for reading and not writing and then it dictates what format it returns.
Please also notice that to be properly SCSI compliant you also need to provide the mode page in a "mask mode" that shows which bits of a mode page are settable.
Related
I'm developing a desktop application with qt which communicates with stm32 to send and receive data.
The thing is, the data to transfer, follow a well-defined shape, with a previously defined fields. My problem is that I can't find how read () or readall() work or how Qserialport even treats the data. So my question is how can I read data (in real time, whenever there is data in the buffer) and analyze it field by field (or per byte) in order to be displayed in the GUI.
There's nothing to it. read() and readAll() give you bytes, optionally wrapped in a QByteArray. How you deal with those bytes is up to you. The serial port doesn't "treat" or interpret the data in any way.
The major point of confusion is that somehow people think of a serial port as if it was a packet oriented interface. It's not. When the readyRead() signal fires, all that you're guaranteed is that there's at least one new byte available to read. You must cope with such fragmentation.
I'm developing a web front end for a GNU Radio application developed by a colleague.
I have a TCP client connecting to the output of two TCP Sink blocks, and the data encoding is not as I expect it to be.
One TCP Sink is sending complex data and the other is sending float data.
I'm decoding the data at the client by reading each 4-byte chunk as a float32 value. The server and the client are both little-endian systems, but I also tried byte swapping (with the GNU Radio Endian Swap block and also manually at the client), and the data is still not right. Actually it's much worse then, confirming there is no byte order mismatch.
When I execute the flow graph in GNU Radio Companion with appropriate GUI elements, the plots look correct. The data values are shown as expected to between 0 and 10.
However the values decoded at the client are generally around 0.00xxxxx, and the plot looks like noise rather than showing a simple tone as is seen in GNU Radio. If I manually scale the data by multiplying by 1000 it still looks like noise.
I'll describe the pre-D path in GNU Radio since it's shorter, but I see the same problem on the post-D path, where a WBFM Receive and a Rational Resampler are added, followed by a Throttle block and then a TCP Sink block sending float data.
File Source (Output Type: complex, vector length: 1) =>
Throttle (vector length: 1) =>
Low Pass Filter (FIR Type: Complex->Complex (Decimating)) =>
Throttle (vector length: 1) =>
TCP Sink (input type: complex, vector length: 1).
This seems to be the correct way to specify the stream parameters (and indeed Companion shows errors if I make changes which mismatch the stream items), but I can find no way to decode the data correctly on the other end of the stream.
"the historic RFC 1700 (also known as Internet standard STD 2) has defined the network order for protocols in the Internet protocol suite to be big-endian , hence the use of the term 'network byte order' for big-endian byte order."
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness
having mentioned the network order for protocols being big-endian, this actually says nothing about the byte order of network payload itself.
also note: Sun Microsystems made big-endian native byte order computers (upon which much Internet protocol development was done).
i am surprised the previous answer has gone this long without a lesson on network byte order versus native byte order.
GNURadio appears to assume native byte order from a UDP Source block.
Examining the datatype color codes in Help->Types of GNURadio Companion, the orange colored 'float' connections are float32.
To verify a computer's native byte order, in Python, do:
from sys import byteorder
byteorder
the result will be 'little' or 'big'
It might be possible that no matter what type floats you are sending, when bytes get on network they get ordered in little endian. I had similar problem with udp connection, and I solved it by parsing floats as little endian on client side.
I am using XBee Digimesh Modules in API-Mode to send data between different industrial machines allowing them to share data, information and commands.
The API-Mode offers some basic commands, mainly to perform addressing and talk with the XBee Module itself in order to do configuration, etc.
Sending user data is done via a corresponding XBee API-Command which allows to send user-defined data with a maximum payload of 72 Bytes.
Since I want to expand this communication to allow integration of more machines, etc. I am thinking about how to implement a basic communication system that's tailored perfectly to the super small payload of just 72 Bytes.
Coming from the web, I normally would use some sort of JSON here but that would fill up the payload very quickly.
Also it's not possible to send a frame with lot's of information since this also fills up the payload very quickly.
So I came up with a different way of communicating. Instead of transmitting frames packed with information, what about sending some sort of Messages like this:
Machine-A Broadcasts: Who's there?
Machine-B Answers: It's me I am a xxx-Machine
Machine-C Answers: It's me I am a xxx-Machine
Machine-A now evaluates the replies and decides to work with Machine-B (because Machine-C does not match As interface):
Machine-A to B: Hello B, Give me some Value, please!
Machine-B to A: There you go: 2.349590
This can be extended to different short messages. After each message the sender holds the type of message in a state and the reply will be evaluated in relation to the state / context.
What I was trying to avoid was defining a bit-based protocol (like MIDI) which defines all events as bit based flags. Since we do not now what type of hardware there will be added in the future I want a communication protocol that's very flexible and does not need a coordinator or message broker, etc.
But since this is the first time I am thinking about communication protocols I am curious to know if there might be some existing frameworks that can handle complex communication on a light payload.
You might want to read through the ZigBee Cluster Library specification with a focus on the general commands. It describes a system of attribute discovery and retrieval. Each attribute has a 16-bit ID and a datatype (integers of various sizes, enumerated types, bitmaps) that determines its size.
It's a protocol designed for the small payloads of an 802.15.4 network, and you could potentially based your protocol off of a subset of it. Other ZigBee specifications are simply a list of defined attributes (and commands) for a given 16-bit cluster ID.
Your master device can go through a discovery process to get a list of attribute IDs, and then send a request to get values for multiple IDs in one shot. The response will be packed tight with a 16-bit ID, 8-bit attribute type and then variable length data. Even if your master device doesn't know what the ID corresponds to, it can pass the data along to other systems (like a web server) that do know.
I'm new on Java Card applications. At this moment I would like to store a hash table (dictionary) that contains the configuration of a terminal that reads this type of cards. If the hash table has values, those must be retrieved to the terminal (I think using APDU's right?) but also if there are no values, the terminal must create a "default" initial configuration.
Is it possible to do this? If it is, how? Maybe there is an applet ready for that (like Musclecard for key generation and signing) but I haven't found any.
Any advice? Thanks!
Java Card is pretty limited regarding support for data structures. It has a few basic types such as byte and short and optionally int, which is not used anywhere in the classic API. For those types you can generate two types of transient (RAM) arrays using JCSystem.makeTransientByteArray() and friends. Furthermore, the default byte[], short[] and Object[] created using new are stored in EEPROM.
The Object class in Java Card has been stripped down as well. This means that there is no such thing as hashCode(). If it was present then you would run into problems as the Java SE version of hashCode() returns an integer, which is probably not present. All defined data containers are either smart card or security related (e.g. the APDU and Key classes).
So basically, if you want to create a HashMap - the common type of dictionary on Java SE - then you will have to create it yourself. It is in that case a good idea to define a Hashable interface that classes can implement to act as a key. The structures should be generated in the right type of memory. For the kind of application you specify you probably need persistent memory, which is kind of the default for object instances created using the new key word.
Personally, I would make very sure you need a hashCode() method for your solution. It is probably easier to create an Object array and simply iterate over the elements.
Since there is no hash table in the smart card, you can store the terminal configurations in byte arrays. The smart card only stores the configuration (and optionally protect the data), and the instruction to get stored configuration or to update it shall be sent by terminal via APDU command.
Suggestion 1
Put your configuration in a Linear Fixed EF, if the card supports file system. No applet needs to be created/installed. It's the terminal job to read all records of the file to determine whether a configuration exist or not, and to write configuration into the file using standard APDU (UPDATE RECORD, READ RECORD).
NOTE:
set record length as number of terminal configuration bytes
number of records denotes the number of configurations that can be stored
you can put initial condition to indicate that the record is unused, e.g. 00...00
Suggestion 2
Create your own javacard applet. The applet must handle at least three proprietary APDUs:
Get list of terminal configurations
Update a record of terminal configuration
Delete a record of terminal configuration
NOTE:
You need to handle how to store and return the bytes between APDU format and your storage
I'm designing a game server and I have never done anything like this before. I was just wondering what a good structure for a packet would be data-wise? I am using TCP if it matters. Here's an example, and what I was considering using as of now:
(each value in brackets is a byte)
[Packet length][Action ID][Number of Parameters]
[Parameter 1 data length as int][Parameter 1 data type][Parameter 1 data (multi byte)]
[Parameter 2 data length as int][Parameter 2 data type][Parameter 2 data (multi byte)]
[Parameter n data length as int][Parameter n data type][Parameter n data (multi byte)]
Like I said, I really have never done anything like this before so what I have above could be complete bull, which is why I'm asking ;). Also, is passing the total packet length even necessary?
Passing the total packet length is a good idea. It might cost two more bytes, but you can peek and wait for the socket to have a full packet ready to sip before receiving. That makes code easier.
Overall, I agree with brazzy, a language supplied serialization mechanism is preferrable over any self-made.
Other than that (I think you are using a C-ish language without serialization), I would put the packet ID as the first data on the packet data structure. IMHO that's some sort of convention because the first data member of a struct is always at position 0 and any struct can be downcast to that, identifying otherwise anonymous data.
Your compiler may or may not produce packed structures, but that way you can allocate a buffer, read the packet in and then either cast the structure depending on the first data member. If you are out of luck and it does not produce packed structures, be sure to have a serialization method for each struct that will construct from the (obviously non-destination) memory.
Endiannes is a factor, particularly on C-like languages. Be sure to make clear that packets are of the same endianness always or that you can identify a different endian based on a signature or something. An odd thing that's very cool: C# and .NET seems to always hold data in little-endian convention when you access them using like discussed in this post here. Found that out when porting such an application to Mono on a SUN. Cool, but if you have that setup you should use the serialization means of C# anyways.
Other than that, your setup looks very okay!
Start by considering a much simpler basic wrapper: Tag, Length, Value (TLV). Your basic packet will look then like this:
[Tag] [Length] [Value]
Tag is a packet identifier (like your action ID).
Length is the packet length. You may need this to tell whether you have the full packet. It will also let you figure out how long the value portion is.
Value contains the actual data. The format of this can be anything.
In your case above, the value data contains a further series of TLV structures (parameter type, length, value). You don't actually need to send the number of parameters, as you can work it from the data length and walking the data.
As others have said, I would put the packet ID (Tag) first. Unless you have cross-platform concerns, I would consider wrapping your application's serialised object in a TLV and sending it across the wire like that. If you make a mistake or want to change later, you can always create a new tag with a different structure.
See Wikipedia for more details on TLV.
To avoid reinventing the wheel, any serialization protocol will work for on the wire data (e.g. XML, JSON), and you might consider looking at BEEP for the basic protocol framework.
BEEP is summed up well in its FAQ document as 'kind of a "best hits" album of the tricks used by experienced application protocol designers since the early 80's.'
There's no reason to make something so complicated like that. I see that you have an action ID, so I suppose there would be a fixed number of actions.
For each action, you would define a data structure, and then you would put each one of those values in the structure. To send it over the wire, you just allocate sum(sizeof(struct.i)) bytes for each element in your structure. So your packet would look like this:
[action ID][item 1 (sizeof(item 1 bytes)][item 1 (sizeof(item 2 bytes)]...[item n (sizeof(item n bytes)]
The idea is, you already know the size and type of each variable on each side of the connection is, so you don't need to send that information.
For strings, you can just throw 'em in in a null terminated form, and then when you 'know' to look for a string based on your packet type, start reading and looking for a null.
--
Another option would be to use '\r\n' to delineate your variables. That would require some overhead, and you would have to use text, rather then binary values for numbers. But that way you could just use readline to read each variable. Your packets would look like this
[action ID]
[item 1 (as text)]
...
[item n (as text)]
--
Finally, simply serializing objects and passing them down the wire is a good way to do this too, with the least amount of code to write. Remember that you don't want to prematurely optimize, and that includes network traffic as well. If it turns out you need to squeeze out a little bit more performance later on you can go back and figure out a more efficient mechanism.
And check out google's protocol buffers, which are supposedly an extreemly fast way to serialize data in a platform-neutral way, kind of like a binary XML, but without nested elements. There's also JSON, which is another platform neutral encoding. Using protocol buffers or JSON would mean you wouldn't have to worry about how to specifically encode the messages.
Do you want the server to support multiple clients written in different languages? If not, it's probably not necessary to specify the structure exactly; instead use whatever facility for serializing data your language offers, simply to reduce the potential for errors.
If you do need the structure to be portable, the above looks OK, though you should specify stuff like endianness and text encoding as well in that case.