Kernel space: udev rules, but whose?

Once upon a time, a Linux distribution would be installed with a /dev directory fully populated with device files. Most of them represented hardware which would never be present on the installed system, but they needed to be there just in case. Toward the end of this era, it was not uncommon to find systems with around 20,000 special files in /dev, and the number continued to grow. This scheme was unwieldy at best, and the growing number of hotpluggable devices (and devices in general) threatened to make the whole structure collapse under its own weight. Something, clearly, needed to be done.

For a little while, it seemed like that something might be devfs, but that story did not end well. The real solution to the /dev mess turned out to be a tool called "udev," originally written by Greg Kroah-Hartman. Udev would respond to device addition and removal events from the kernel, creating and removing special files in /dev. Over time, udev gained more powerful features, such as the ability to run external programs which would help to create persistent names for transient devices. Udev is now a key component in almost all Linux systems. It's like the plumbing in a house; most people never notice it until it breaks. Then they realize how important a component it really is.

Udev is configured via a set of rules, found under /etc/udev/rules.d on most systems. These rules specify how devices should be named, what their ownership and permissions should be, which kernel modules should be loaded, which programs should be run, and so on. The udev rule set also allows distributors and system administrators to tweak the system's device-related behavior to match local needs and taste.

Or maybe not. Udev maintainer Kay Sievers has recently let it be known that he would like all distributors to be using the set of udev rules shipped with the program itself. Says Kay:

This request was surprising to some. A Linux system is full of utilities with configuration files under /etc; there is not normally a push for all distributions to use the same ones. So why should all distributors use the same udev rules? The reasoning here would appear to come down to these points:

The udev rules files are not really configuration files - they are, instead, code written in a domain-specific language. For a distributor to change those files is akin to patching the underlying C code; far from unheard of, but generally seen as being undesirable. As a way of underscoring this point, the udev developers are moving the udev rules out of /etc and into /lib.  

There is little reason for distributors to differentiate themselves based on their device naming schemes, and every reason to have all Linux systems use the same device names. For the situations where reasonable distributions may still differ - which group should own a device, for example - there is a mechanism to add distributor-specific rules.  

Increasingly, other packages will depend on a specific udev setup for the underlying system. Distributors which use their own rules will have a harder time making these new tools work right.

That last point refers, in particular, to DeviceKit, a set of tools designed to make the management of devices easier. Between them, udev and DeviceKit are being positioned to replace most of the functionality in the much-maligned hal utility. See this posting from David Zeuthen for lots more information on DeviceKit and the migration away from hal in general.

The only problem is that some distributors aren't playing along. Marco d'Itri, the Debian udev maintainer, responded that a common set of udev rules is "not going to happen." The default rules, he says, do not meet Debian's need to support older kernels, and, besides, "I consider my rules much more readable and elegant than yours". Ubuntu maintainer Scott James Remnant is also reluctant to use the default rules.

Scott appears to be willing to consider a change to the default rules if it can be made to work right; Marco, instead, seems determined to hold out. When encouraged to send patches to improve the default rules (and make them more elegant), he responded:

It appears likely that most of the distributors will come to see the udev rules as code which is to be maintained upstream; even Debian may come along eventually. As this happens, the layer of "plumbing" which sits just on top of the kernel should be worked into better shape. Kernel developers may find themselves involved in this process; David has posted a proposal that all new kernel subsystems, before being merged, must be provided with a set of udev rules. That would help the udev developers get a set of default rules into shape before the distributors feel the need to step in to make things work.

Increasingly, the operation of the kernel is being tied to a set of low-level user-space applications; there is not much which can be done with a bare kernel. How all of this low-level plumbing should work, and how it should interoperate with the kernel, is still being worked out. The management of udev policies is just one of the outstanding issues. So the upcoming Linux Plumbers Conference would seem to be well timed; there's a lot to talk about.

This story, "Kernel space: udev rules, but whose?" was originally published by Network World.

ITWorld DealPost: The best in tech deals and discounts.
Shop Tech Products at Amazon