1168 lines
55 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
1168 lines
55 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
Note, this is based on the text from a web page, which can be found in
|
|
the documentation section of the http://www.net-snmp.org web page.
|
|
|
|
Extending the UCD-SNMP agent
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
This document describes the procedure for writing code to extend
|
|
the functionality of the v4 UCD-SNMP network management agent.
|
|
Modules written using this procedure should also work with the v5
|
|
Net-SNMP agent, though such modules would not take advantage of the
|
|
new handler-based helper mechanism. See the on-line documentation
|
|
for more information and examples of the newer approach.
|
|
We would be very interested in comment and feedback about how useful
|
|
(or otherwise) you find this description, and ways in which it could
|
|
be improved.
|
|
|
|
The information is designed to be read in order - the structure being:
|
|
|
|
1. Overview & Introduction
|
|
2. MIB files, and how they relate to the agent implementation
|
|
3. Header files
|
|
4. The basic structure of module implementation code
|
|
5. The details of non-table based implementations
|
|
6. The details of simple table based implementations
|
|
7. The details of more general table based implementations
|
|
8. How to implement SET-able variables
|
|
|
|
While the document is intended to be generally self-contained,
|
|
it does occasionally refer to code files shipped with the main UCD
|
|
distribution (in particular the example module), and it may prove
|
|
useful to have these files available for reference.
|
|
|
|
1. How to write a Mib module
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
The design of the UCD SNMP agent has always been shaped by the desire to be
|
|
able to extend its functionality by adding new modules. One of the earliest
|
|
developments from the underlying CMU code base was the ability to call
|
|
external scripts, and this is probably the simplest method of extending the
|
|
agent.
|
|
However, there are circumstances where such an approach is felt to be
|
|
inappropriate - perhaps from considerations of speed, access to the
|
|
necessary data, reliability or elegance. In such cases, the obvious solution
|
|
is to provide C code that can be compiled into the agent itself to implement
|
|
the desired module. Many of the more recent developments in the code
|
|
structure have been intended to ease this process. In particular, one of the
|
|
more recent additions to the suite is the tool mib2c. This is designed to
|
|
take a portion of the MIB tree (as defined by a MIB file) and generate the
|
|
code skeleton necessary to implement this. This document will cover the use
|
|
mib2c, as well as describing the requirements and functionality of the code
|
|
in more detail.
|
|
|
|
In order to implement a new MIB module, three files are necessary, and these
|
|
will be considered in turn. Note that, by the very nature of the task, this
|
|
document cannot cover the details of precisely how to obtain the necessary
|
|
information from the operating system or application. Instead, it describes
|
|
the code framework that is needed, freeing the implementer from needing to
|
|
understand the detailed internals of the agent, and allowing them to
|
|
concentrate on the particular problem in hand.
|
|
|
|
It may prove useful to examine some of the existing module implementations
|
|
and examples in the light of this description, and suitable examples will be
|
|
referred to at the appropriate points. However, it should be remembered that
|
|
the UCD agent seeks to support a wide variety of systems, often with
|
|
dramatically differing implementations and interfaces, and this is reflected
|
|
in the complexity of the code. Also, the agent has developed gradually over
|
|
the years, and there is often some measure of duplication or redundancy as a
|
|
result.
|
|
As the FAQ states, the official slogan of the UCD-SNMP developers is
|
|
|
|
The current implementation is non-obvious and may need to be
|
|
improved.
|
|
|
|
This document describes the ideal, straightforward cases - real life is
|
|
rarely so simple, and the example modules may prove easier to follow at a
|
|
first reading.
|
|
It is also advisable to have a compiled and installed implementation
|
|
available before starting to extend the agent. This will make debugging and
|
|
testing the agent much easier.
|
|
|
|
A note regarding terminology - the word "module" is widely used throughout
|
|
this document, with a number of different meanings.
|
|
|
|
* support for a new MIB,
|
|
i.e. the whole of the functionality that is required. This is usually
|
|
termed a MIB module;
|
|
* a self-contained subset of this, implemented as a single unit.
|
|
This is usually termed an implementation module (or simply "a module");
|
|
* the combination of such subsets, usually termed a module group.
|
|
|
|
Note that the first and third of these are often synonymous - the
|
|
difference being that a MIB module refers to the view from outside the
|
|
agent, regarding this as a seamless whole and hiding the internal
|
|
implementation. A "module group" is used where the internal structure is of
|
|
more relevance, and recognises the fact that the functionality may be
|
|
provided by a number of co-operating implementation modules.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, enough waffle - on with the details: The three files needed are
|
|
|
|
* a MIB definition file;
|
|
* a C header file;
|
|
* a C implementation file.
|
|
|
|
The next part looks at the MIB definition file, and how this impacts on the
|
|
agent implementation.
|
|
|
|
2. The MIB File
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
The first file needed is the MIB file that defines the MIB module to be
|
|
implemented.
|
|
Strictly speaking, this is not absolutely necessary, as the agent itself
|
|
does not make any direct use of the MIB definitions. However, it is
|
|
advisable to start with this for three reasons:
|
|
|
|
* It provides an initial specification for what is to be implemented.
|
|
Code development is always easier if you know what you are meant to be
|
|
writing!
|
|
* If the new MIB file is read in with the other MIB files,
|
|
this lets the applications provided with the suite be used to test the
|
|
new agent, and report (hopefully meaningful) symbolic OIDs and values,
|
|
rather than the bare numeric forms.
|
|
(N.B: Remember to tell the application to load the new MIB. See the
|
|
relevant question in the FAQ)
|
|
* The tool mib2c uses this description to produce the two code files.
|
|
This is by far the easiest way to develop a new module.
|
|
(Note that the v5 version of mib2c is generally similar, but does
|
|
not correspond exactly to the v4 version described here)
|
|
|
|
If the intention is to implement a 'standard' MIB module, or a
|
|
vendor-specific one, then the construction of this file will have already
|
|
been done for you. If the intention is to provide a totally new, private
|
|
module, then you will need to write this yourself, in addition to the agent
|
|
code files.
|
|
A description of MIB file format and syntax is beyond the scope of this
|
|
document, and most books on SNMP management should provide some information
|
|
on this subject. One book which concentrates on this is
|
|
|
|
Understanding SNMP MIBS
|
|
(Perkins & McGinnis, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-437708-7).
|
|
|
|
This blatant plug is wholly unrelated to the fact that David Perkins is an
|
|
active member of the development group, and is regarded as our resident
|
|
"protocol guru and policeman". (In fact, this book concentrates on MIB
|
|
files in rather more detail than is appropriate in more general SNMP works).
|
|
Information on other books covering SNMP and Network Management more generally
|
|
is available on the SimpleWeb site (among other places).
|
|
See the FAQ for more details.
|
|
|
|
Assigned OID numbers
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
One word of advice - even if you are developing a totally private MIB
|
|
module, you will still need to position this somewhere within the overall
|
|
MIB tree. Please do NOT simply choose a location "at random". Any such is
|
|
likely to have either been assigned to some other organisation, or may be so
|
|
assigned some time in the future. However much you may regard your project
|
|
as a totally internal affair, such projects have a tendency to exceed their
|
|
expected scope, both in terms of lifetime and distribution (not to mention
|
|
the potential OID clash if you subsequently need to use elements from the
|
|
legitimate owner's tree).
|
|
It is simple and cheap (i.e. free!) to obtain your own official segment of
|
|
the MIB tree (see http://www.iana.org for an application form), and having
|
|
done so, you then have complete global authority over it. If you have
|
|
problems with this, it's worth contacting the development team (email:
|
|
net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net) for advice. Please do think to the
|
|
future, and be a good Net citizen by using a legitimately assigned OID as
|
|
the root of your new MIB.
|
|
|
|
MIB division
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
The next point to consider, whether writing by hand or using mib2c,
|
|
implementing an existing MIB, or writing a new one, is whether and how to
|
|
divide up the MIB tree. This is a purely internal implementation decision,
|
|
and will not be visible to management applications querying the agent. A
|
|
sensible choice of partitioning will result in a simpler, clearer
|
|
implementation, which should ease both the initial development and
|
|
subsequent maintenance of the module.
|
|
Unfortunately, this choice is one of the module-specific decisions, so must
|
|
be made on a case-by-case basis. For a simple, self-contained module, it may
|
|
well be reasonable to implement the module as a single block (examples
|
|
include the SNMP statistics subtree RFC 1907 or the TCP subtree RFC 2011).
|
|
More complex and diverse modules (such as the Host Resources MIB - RFC 1514)
|
|
are more naturally considered as a number of individual sub-modules.
|
|
Some guidelines to bear in mind when deciding on this division:
|
|
|
|
* A MIB sub-tree consisting purely of scalar objects with a common
|
|
OID prefix would normally be handled in a single implementation module;
|
|
* Separate scalar subtrees would normally be in different implementation
|
|
modules;
|
|
* A table can either be handled within the same implementation module
|
|
as related scalar objects in the same subtree, or in a separate
|
|
implementation module;
|
|
* Variables that rely on the same underlying data structure to retrieve
|
|
their values, should probably be in the same implementation module (and
|
|
conversely, (though less so) those that don't, shouldn't).
|
|
|
|
As an initial rule of thumb, a good initial division is likely to be
|
|
obtained by treating each table and each scalar sub-tree separately. This
|
|
can be seen in the current agent, where most of the MIB-II modules (RFC
|
|
1213) are implemented in separate files (see the files under mibgroup/mibII).
|
|
Note that many of these combine scalar and table handling in the same file,
|
|
though they are implemented using separate routines.
|
|
This is also the approach used by mib2c, which constructs a single pair of
|
|
code files, but uses a separate routine for each table (and another for all
|
|
the scalar variables).
|
|
Ultimately, the final consideration (concerning the underlying data) is
|
|
the most important, and should guide the basic division. For example, the
|
|
Host Resources Running Software and Running Software Performance modules,
|
|
while separate in the MIB tree, use the same underlying kernel data and so
|
|
are implemented together.
|
|
|
|
MIB name
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
The final requirement at this stage is to choose a name for each
|
|
implementation module. This should be reasonably short, meaningful, unique
|
|
and unlikely to clash with other (existing or future) modules. Mib2c uses
|
|
the label of the root node of the MIB sub-tree as this name, and this is a
|
|
reasonable choice in most cases.
|
|
Recent changes to the agent code organisation have introduced the idea of
|
|
module groups of related implementation modules. This is used, for example,
|
|
to identify the constituent modules of a 'split' MIB (such as the Host
|
|
Resources MIB), or those relating to a particular organisation (such as
|
|
UCD).
|
|
As with the division, this naming and grouping is a purely internal matter,
|
|
and is really only visible when configuring and compiling the agent.
|
|
|
|
So much for the MIB file. The next part considers the C header file.
|
|
|
|
3. The C code header file
|
|
=========================
|
|
|
|
If the MIB file is the definition of the module for external network
|
|
management applications (where applications includes network management
|
|
personnel!), then the header file has traditionally served effectively the
|
|
same purpose for the agent itself.
|
|
Recent changes to the recommended code structure has resulted in the header
|
|
file becoming increasingly simpler. It now simply contains definitions of the
|
|
publically visible routines, and can be generated completely by mib2c.
|
|
|
|
Function prototypes
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
For those interested in the details of this file (for example, if coding a
|
|
module by hand), then the details of these definitions are as follows. Every
|
|
header file will have the following two function prototype definitions
|
|
|
|
extern void init_example (void);
|
|
extern FindVarMethod var_example;
|
|
|
|
If the module includes any tables, or other collections of variables that
|
|
are implemented in separate routines, then this second definition will be
|
|
repeated for each of these.
|
|
In addition, if any of the variables can be SET (and it is intended to
|
|
implement them as such), there will be a function prototype definitions for
|
|
each of these, of the form:
|
|
|
|
extern WriteMethod write_varName;
|
|
|
|
These prototypes are in fact typedef'ed in <agent/snmp_vars.h>.
|
|
|
|
Module dependencies
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
This header file is also used to inform the compilation system of any
|
|
dependancies between this module and any others. There is one utility module
|
|
which is required by almost every module, and this is included using the
|
|
directive
|
|
|
|
config_require( util_funcs )
|
|
|
|
(which is produced automatically by mib2c). This same syntax can be used to
|
|
trigger the inclusion of other related modules. An example of this can be
|
|
seen in mibII/route_write.h which relies on the mibII/ip module, thus:
|
|
|
|
config_require( mibII/ip )
|
|
|
|
One use of this directive is to define a module group, by supplying a header
|
|
file consisting exclusively of such config_require directives. It can then
|
|
be included or excluded from the agent very simply. Examples of this can be
|
|
seen in mibgroup/mibII.h or mibgroup/host.h, which list the consituent
|
|
sub-modules of the MIB-II and Host Resources MIBs respectively.
|
|
|
|
MIB file information
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
Most of the information in this file is (understandably) aimed at the network
|
|
management agent itself. However, there is one common header file directive
|
|
that is actually intended to affect the utility commands that are included
|
|
within the full distribution:
|
|
|
|
config_add_mib( HOST-RESOURCES-MIB )
|
|
|
|
This is used to add the MIB file being implemented to the default list of
|
|
MIBs loaded by such commands. This means that querying the agent will return
|
|
informative names and values, rather than the raw numeric forms that SNMP
|
|
actually works with. Of course, it is always possible for the utilities
|
|
to specify that this MIB should be loaded anyway. But specifying this file
|
|
within the module header file is a useful hint that a particular MIB should
|
|
be loaded, without needing to ask for it explicitly.
|
|
Note that this will only affect the binaries compiled as part of the same
|
|
configuration run. It will have no effect on pre-installed binaries, or
|
|
those compiled following a different configuration specification.
|
|
|
|
Magic Numbers
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
The other common element within the header file defines a set of "magic
|
|
numbers" - one for each object within the implementation module. In fact,
|
|
this can equally well appear within the main code file, as part of the
|
|
variable structure (which will be described in the next part).
|
|
This is the technique used by mib2c, but most handcrafted modules have
|
|
tended to define these as part of the header file, probably for clarity.
|
|
|
|
The only necessity is that the names and values are distinct (or more
|
|
precisely, the values are distinct within a single variable handling routine).
|
|
In practise, they tend to be defined using integers incrementing from 1,
|
|
or as the same as the final sub-identifier of the corresponding MIB object
|
|
(or indeed both, as these are frequently themselves successive integers).
|
|
This is not mandatory, and a counter-example can be seen in the
|
|
example module, where two of the object form a sub-tree, and the corresponding
|
|
magic numbers are based on the final *two* sub-identifiers (to ensure that
|
|
the values are unique). But this construction is definitely unusual, and
|
|
the majority of modules simply use successive integers.
|
|
|
|
Header file protection
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
Normally, the only other contents of the header file will be the
|
|
#ifndef/#define/#endif statements surrounding the whole file. This is used
|
|
to ensure that the header file is only included once by any source code file
|
|
(or more accurately, that there is no effect if it is inadvertantly included
|
|
a second time).
|
|
Again, as with the rest of the header file, this is generated automatically
|
|
by mib2c.
|
|
|
|
Having finished all the preparatory work (or let mib2c deal with it), the
|
|
next part starts to look at the code file that actually implements the
|
|
module.
|
|
|
|
4. Core structure of the implementation code
|
|
============================================
|
|
|
|
The core work of implementing the module is done in the C code file. As
|
|
indicated earlier, much of the detail of this will be dependent on the
|
|
particular module being implemented, and this can only be described by the
|
|
individual programmer concerned.
|
|
However, there is a fairly clearly defined framework that the implementation
|
|
will need to follow, though this varies slightly depending on the style of
|
|
the module being implemented (in particular whether it forms a table or a
|
|
series of individual values). The differences will be covered in the
|
|
following pages, but we first need to consider the overall shape of the
|
|
framework, and the elements that are common to all styles. These are
|
|
essentially the compulsory routines, the common header definitions, and
|
|
assorted initialisation code.
|
|
As with the header file, most of this will be generated automatically by
|
|
mib2c.
|
|
|
|
Standard includes
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Certain header files are either compulsory, or required so frequently that
|
|
they should be included as a matter of course. These are as follows:
|
|
|
|
#include <config.h> // local SNMP configuration details
|
|
#include "mib_module_config.h" // list of which modules are supported
|
|
#if HAVE_STDLIB_H
|
|
#include <stdlib.h>
|
|
#endif
|
|
#if HAVE_STRING_H
|
|
#include <string.h>
|
|
#else
|
|
#include <strings.h>
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/types.h>
|
|
|
|
All of these will usually be the first files to be included.
|
|
|
|
#include "mibincl.h" // Standard set of SNMP includes
|
|
#include "util_funcs.h" // utility function declarations
|
|
#include "read_config.h" // if the module uses run-time
|
|
// configuration controls
|
|
#include "auto_nlist.h" // structures for a BSD-based
|
|
// kernel using nlist
|
|
#include "system.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "name.h" // the module-specific header
|
|
|
|
These conventionally come at the end of the list of includes. In between
|
|
will come all the standard system-provided header files required for the
|
|
library functions used in the file.
|
|
|
|
Module definition
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Much of the code defining the contents of the MIB has traditionally been
|
|
held in the header file. However, much of this has slowly migrated to the
|
|
code file, and this is now the recommended location for it (as typified by
|
|
the output of mib2c).
|
|
The main element of this is a variable structure specifying the details of
|
|
the objects implemented. This takes the form of an unconstrained array of
|
|
type struct variableN (where N is the length of the longest suffix in the
|
|
table). Thus
|
|
|
|
struct variable2 example_variables[] = {
|
|
<individual entries go here>
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
Each entry corresponds to one object in the MIB tree (or one column in the
|
|
case of table entries), and these should be listed in increasing OID order.
|
|
A single entry consists of six fields:
|
|
|
|
* a magic number (the #defined integer constant described above)
|
|
* a type indicator (from the values listed in <snmplib/snmp_impl.h>)
|
|
* an access indicator (essentially RWRITE or RONLY)
|
|
* the name of the routine used to handle this entry
|
|
* the length of the OID suffix used, and
|
|
* an array of integers specifying this suffix (more on this in a moment)
|
|
|
|
Thus a typical variable entry would look like:
|
|
|
|
{ EXAMPLESTRING, ASN_OCTET_STR, RONLY, var_example, 1, {1}}
|
|
|
|
If the magic numbers have not been defined in the header file, then they
|
|
should be defined here, usually comming immediately before the corresponding
|
|
variable entry. This is the technique used by mib2c.
|
|
|
|
Note that in practise, only certain sizes of the structure variableN
|
|
are defined (listed in <agent/var_struct.h>), being sufficient to meet the
|
|
common requirements. If your particular module needs a non-supported value,
|
|
the easiest thing is simply to use the next largest value that is supported.
|
|
|
|
The module also needs to declare the location within the MIB tree where
|
|
it should be registered. This is done using a declaration of the form
|
|
|
|
oid example_variables_oid[] = { 1,3,6,1,4,1,2021,254 }
|
|
|
|
where the contents of the array give the object identifier of the root of
|
|
the module.
|
|
|
|
Module initialisation
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
Many modules require some form of initialisation before they can start
|
|
providing the necessary information. This is done by providing a routine
|
|
called init_{name} (where {name} is the name of the module).
|
|
This routine is theoretically optional, but in practise is required to
|
|
register this module with the main agent at the very least. This specifies
|
|
the list of variables being implemented (from the variableN structure)
|
|
and declare where these fit into the overall MIB tree.
|
|
|
|
This is done by using the REGISTER_MIB macro, as follows:
|
|
|
|
REGISTER_MIB( "example", example_variables, variable2,
|
|
example_variables_oid );
|
|
|
|
where "example" is used for identification purposed (and is usually the name
|
|
being used for the module), example_variables is the structure defining the
|
|
variables being implemented, variable2 is the type used for this structure,
|
|
and example_variables_oid is the location of the root.
|
|
|
|
In fact, this macro is simply a wrapper round the routine register_mib(),
|
|
but the details of this can safely be ignored, unless more control over the
|
|
registration is required.
|
|
|
|
One common requirement, particularly on older operating systems or for the
|
|
more obscure areas of the system, is to be able to read data directly from
|
|
kernel memory. The preparation for this is typically done here by one or
|
|
more statements of the form
|
|
|
|
#ifdef {NAME}_SYMBOL
|
|
auto_nlist( {NAME}_SYMBOL, 0, 0);
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
where {NAME}_SYMBOL is defined as part of the system-specific configuration,
|
|
to be the name of the appropriate kernel variable or data structure. (The
|
|
two 0 values are because the kernel information is simply being primed at
|
|
this point - this call will be reused later when the actual values are
|
|
required). Note that this is probably the first thing described so far which
|
|
isn't provided by mib2c!
|
|
|
|
Other possibilities for initialisation may include registering config file
|
|
directive handlers (which are documented in the read_config(5) man page), and
|
|
registering the MIB module (either in whole or in part) in the sysOR table.
|
|
The first of these is covered in the example module, and the second in many
|
|
of the other modules within the main UCD distribution.
|
|
|
|
Variable handling
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
The other obligatory routine is that which actually handles a request for a
|
|
particular variable instance. This is the routine that appeared in the
|
|
variableN structure, so while the name is not fixed, it should be the same
|
|
as was used there.
|
|
This routine has six parameters, which will be described in turn.
|
|
|
|
Four of these parameters are used for passing in information about the
|
|
request, these being:
|
|
|
|
struct variable *vp;
|
|
// The entry in the variableN array from the
|
|
// header file, for the object under consideration.
|
|
// Note that the name field of this structure has been
|
|
// completed into a fully qualified OID, by prepending
|
|
// the prefix common to the whole array.
|
|
oid *name; // The OID from the request
|
|
int *length; // The length of this OID
|
|
int exact; // A flag to indicate whether this is an exact
|
|
// request (GET/SET) or an 'inexact' one (GETNEXT)
|
|
|
|
Four of the parameters are used to return information about the answer.
|
|
The function also returns a pointer to the actual data for the variable
|
|
requested (or NULL if this data is not available for any reason).
|
|
The other result parameters are:
|
|
|
|
oid *name; // The OID being returned
|
|
int *length; // The length of this OID
|
|
int *var_len; // The length of the answer being returned
|
|
WriteMethod **write_method;
|
|
// A pointer to the SET function for this variable
|
|
|
|
Note that two of the parameters (name and length) serve a dual purpose,
|
|
being used for both input and output.
|
|
|
|
The first thing that this routine needs to do is to validate the request, to
|
|
ensure that it does indeed lie in the range implemented by this particular
|
|
module. This is done in slightly different ways, depending on the style of
|
|
the module, so this will be discussed in more detail later.
|
|
At the same time, it is common to retrieve some of the information needed
|
|
for answering the query.
|
|
|
|
Then the routine uses the Magic Number field from the vp parameter to determine
|
|
which of the possible variables being implemented is being requested. This is
|
|
done using a switch statement, which should have as many cases as there are
|
|
entries in the variableN array (or more precisely, as many as specify this
|
|
routine as their handler), plus an additional default case to handle an
|
|
erroneous call.
|
|
Each branch of the switch statement needs to ensure that the return
|
|
parameters are filled in correctly, set up a (static) return variable with
|
|
the correct data, and then return a pointer to this value. These can be done
|
|
separately for each branch, or once at the start, being overridden in
|
|
particular branches if necessary.
|
|
|
|
In fact, the default validation routines make the assumption that the
|
|
variable is both read-only, and of integer type (which includes the COUNTER
|
|
and GAUGE types among others), and set the return paramaters write_method and
|
|
var_len appropriately. These settings can then be corrected for those cases
|
|
when either or both of these assumptions are wrong. Examples of this can be
|
|
seen in the example module.
|
|
EXAMPLEINTEGER is writeable, so this branch sets the write_method parameter,
|
|
and EXAMPLEOBJECTID is not an integer, so this branch sets the var_len
|
|
parameter. In the case of EXAMPLESTRING, both assumptions are wrong, so this
|
|
branch needs to set both these parameters explicitly.
|
|
|
|
Note that because the routine returns a pointer to a static result, a
|
|
suitable variable must be declared somewhere for this. Two global variables
|
|
are provided for this purpose - long_return (for integer results) and
|
|
return_buf (for other types). This latter is a generic array (of type
|
|
u_char) that can contain up to 256 bytes of data. Alternatively, static
|
|
variables can be declared, either within the code file, or local to this
|
|
particular variable routine. This last is the approach adopted by mib2c,
|
|
which defines four such local variables, (long_ret, string, objid and c64).
|
|
|
|
Mib2c requirements
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
Most of the code described here is generated by mib2c. The main exceptions
|
|
(which therefore need to be provided by the programmer) are
|
|
|
|
* Any initialisation, other than the basic registration
|
|
(including kernel data initialisation, config file handling, or sysOR
|
|
registration).
|
|
* Retrieving the necessary data, and setting the appropriate return
|
|
value correctly.
|
|
* The var_len (and possibly write_method) return parameters for variable
|
|
types that are not recognised by mib2c
|
|
* The contents of any write routines (see later).
|
|
|
|
Everything else should be useable as generated.
|
|
|
|
This concludes the preliminary walk-through of the general structure of the
|
|
C implementation. To fill in the details, we will need to consider the
|
|
various styles of module separately. The next part will look at scalar (i.e.
|
|
non-table based) modules.
|
|
|
|
5. Non-table-based modules
|
|
==========================
|
|
|
|
Having looked at the general structure of a module implementation, it's now
|
|
time to look at this in more detail. We'll start with the simplest style of
|
|
module - a collection of independent variables. This could easily be
|
|
implemented as a series of completely separate modules - the main reason for
|
|
combining them is to avoid the proliferation of multiple versions of very
|
|
similar code.
|
|
|
|
Recall that the variable handling routine needs to cover two distinct
|
|
purposes - validation of the request, and provision of the answer. In this
|
|
style of module, these are handled separately. Once again, mib2c does much
|
|
of the donkey work, generating the whole of the request validation code (so
|
|
the description of this section can be skipped if desired), and even
|
|
providing a skeleton for returning the data. This latter still requires some
|
|
input from the programmer, to actually return the correct results (rather
|
|
than dummy values).
|
|
|
|
Request Validation
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
This is done using a standard utility function header_generic. The
|
|
parameters for this are exactly the same as for the main routine, and are
|
|
simply passed through directly. It returns an integer result, as a flag to
|
|
indicate whether the validation succeeded or not.
|
|
If the validation fails, then the main routine should return immediately,
|
|
leaving the parameters untouched, and indicate the failure by returning a
|
|
NULL value. Thus the initial code fragment of a scalar-variable style
|
|
implementation will typically look like:
|
|
|
|
u_char *
|
|
var_system(vp, name, length, exact, var_len, write_method)
|
|
{
|
|
if (header_generic(vp, name, length, exact, var_len, write_method)
|
|
== MATCH_FAILED )
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
[ etc, etc, etc ]
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Although the utility function can be used as a "black box", it's worth
|
|
looking more closely at exactly what it does (since the table-handling
|
|
modules will need to do something fairly similar). It has two (or possibly
|
|
three) separate functions:
|
|
|
|
* checking that the request is valid,
|
|
* setting up the OID for the result,
|
|
* and (optionally) setting up default values for the other return
|
|
parameters.
|
|
|
|
In order to actually validate the request, the header routine first needs to
|
|
construct the OID under consideration, in order to compare it with that
|
|
originally asked for. The driving code has already combined the OID prefix
|
|
(constant throughout the module) with the entry-specific suffix, before
|
|
calling the main variable handler. This is available via the name field of
|
|
the parameter vp. For a scalar variable, completing the OID is therefore
|
|
simply a matter of appending the instance identifier 0 to this. The full OID
|
|
is built up in a local oid array newname defined for this purpose.
|
|
This gives the following code fragment:
|
|
|
|
int
|
|
header_generic(vp, name, length, exact, var_len, write_method)
|
|
{
|
|
oid newname[MAX_OID_LEN];
|
|
|
|
memcpy((char *)newname, (char *)vp->name,
|
|
(int)vp->namelen * sizeof(oid));
|
|
newname[ vp->namelen ] = 0;
|
|
|
|
:
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Having formed the OID, this can then be compared against the variable
|
|
specified in the original request, which is available as the name parameter.
|
|
This comparison is done using the snmp_oid_compare function, which takes the
|
|
two OIDs (together with their respective lengths), and returns -1, 0 or 1
|
|
depending on whether the first OID precedes, matches or follows the second.
|
|
|
|
In the case of an 'exact' match (i.e. a GET/SET/etc), then the request is
|
|
only valid if the two OIDs are identical (snmp_oid_compare returns 0). In
|
|
the case of a GETNEXT (or GETBULK) request, it's valid if the OID being
|
|
considered comes after that of the original request (snmp_oid_compare
|
|
returns -1).
|
|
|
|
This gives the code fragment
|
|
|
|
result = snmp_oid_compare(name, *length, newname, (int)vp->namelen + 1);
|
|
// +1 because of the extra instance sub-identifier
|
|
if ((exact && (result != 0)) // GET match fails
|
|
|| (!exact && (result >= 0))) // GETNEXT match fails
|
|
return(MATCH_FAILED);
|
|
|
|
Note that in this case, we're only interested in the single variable
|
|
indicated by the vp parameter. The fact that this module may well implement
|
|
other variables as well is ignored. The 'lexically next' requirement of the
|
|
GETNEXT request is handled by working through the variable entries in order
|
|
until one matches. And yes, this is not the most efficient implementation
|
|
possible!
|
|
Note that in releases prior to 3.6, the snmp_oid_compare function was called
|
|
simply compare.
|
|
|
|
Finally, having determined that the request is valid, this routine must
|
|
update the name and length parameters to return the OID being processed. It
|
|
also sets default values for the other two return parameters.
|
|
|
|
memcpy( (char *)name,(char *)newname,
|
|
((int)vp->namelen + 1) * sizeof(oid));
|
|
*length = vp->namelen + 1;
|
|
*write_method = 0; // Non-writeable
|
|
*var_len = sizeof(long); // default to integer results
|
|
return(MATCH_SUCCEEDED);
|
|
|
|
These three code fragments combine to form the full header_generic code
|
|
which can be seen in the file util_funcs.c
|
|
|
|
Note: This validation used to be done using a separate function for each
|
|
module (conventionally called header_{name}), and many modules may still be
|
|
coded in this style. The code for these are to all intents and purposes
|
|
identical to the header_generic routine described above.
|
|
|
|
Data Retrieval
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
The other main job of the request handling routine is to retrieve any
|
|
necessary data, and return the appropriate answer to the original request.
|
|
This must be done even if mib2c is being used to generate the framework of
|
|
the implementation. As has been indicated earlier, the different cases are
|
|
handled using a switch statement, with the Magic Number field of the vp
|
|
parameter being used to distinguish between them.
|
|
The data necessary for answering the request can be retrieved for each
|
|
variable individually in the relevant case statement (as is the case with
|
|
the system group), or using a common block of data before processing the
|
|
switch (as is done for the ICMP group, among others).
|
|
|
|
With many of the modules implemented so far, this data is read from a kernel
|
|
structure. This can be done using the auto_nlist routine already mentioned,
|
|
providing a variable in which to store the results and an indication of its
|
|
size (see the !HAVE_SYS_TCPIPSTATS_H case of the ICMP group for an example).
|
|
Alternatively, there may be ioctl calls on suitable devices, specific system
|
|
calls, or special files that can be read to provide the necessary
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
If the available data provides the requested value immediately, then the
|
|
individual branch becomes a simple assignment to the appropriate static
|
|
return variable - either one of the global static variables (e.g. long_return)
|
|
or the local equivalents (such as generated by mib2c).
|
|
Otherwise, the requested value may need to be calculated by combining two or
|
|
more items of data (e.g. IPINHDRERRORS in mibII/ip.c) or by applying a
|
|
mapping or other calculation involving available information (e.g.
|
|
IPFORWARDING from the same group).
|
|
|
|
In each of these cases, the routine should return a pointer to the result
|
|
value, casting this to the pseudo-generic (u_char *)
|
|
|
|
So much for the scalar case. The next part looks at how to handle simple
|
|
tables.
|
|
|
|
6. Simple tables
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
Having considered the simplest style of module implementation, we now turn
|
|
our attention to the next style - a simple table. The tabular nature of
|
|
these is immediately apparent from the MIB definition file, but the
|
|
qualifier "simple" deserves a word of explanation.
|
|
A simple table, in this context, has four characteristics:
|
|
|
|
1. It is indexed by a single integer value;
|
|
2. Such indices run from 1 to a determinable maximum;
|
|
3. All indices within this range are valid;
|
|
4. The data for a particular index can be retrieved directly
|
|
(e.g. by indexing into an underlying data structure).
|
|
|
|
If any of the conditions are not met, then the table is not a pure simple
|
|
one, and the techniques described here are not applicable. The next section
|
|
of this guide will cover the more general case. (In fact, it may be possible
|
|
to use the bulk of the techniques covered here, though special handling will
|
|
be needed to cope with the invalid assumption or assumptions). Note that
|
|
mib2c assumes that all tables are simple.
|
|
|
|
As with the scalar case, the variable routine needs to provide two basic
|
|
functions - request validation and data retrieval.
|
|
|
|
Validation
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
This is provided by the shared utility routine header_simple_table. As with
|
|
the scalar header routine, this takes the same parameters as the main
|
|
variable routine, with one addition - the maximum valid index. Mib2c
|
|
generates a dummy token for this, which must be replaced by the appropriate
|
|
value.
|
|
As with the header routine, it also returns an indication of whether the
|
|
request was valid, as well as setting up the return parameters with the
|
|
matching OID information, and defaults for var_len and write_method.
|
|
Note that in releases prior to 3.6, this job was performed by the routine
|
|
checkmib. However, the return values of this were the reverse of those for
|
|
generic_header and header_simple_table. A version of checkmib is still
|
|
available for compatability purposes, but you are encouraged to use
|
|
header_simple_table instead.
|
|
|
|
The basic code fragment (see ucd-snmp/disk.c) is therefore of the form:
|
|
|
|
unsigned char *
|
|
var_extensible_disk(vp, name, length, exact, var_len, write_method)
|
|
{
|
|
if (header_simple_table(vp,name,length,exact,var_len,write_method,numdisks)
|
|
== MATCH_FAILED)
|
|
return(NULL);
|
|
|
|
[ etc, etc, etc ]
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Note that the maximum index value parameter does not have to be a
|
|
permanently fixed constant. It specifies the maximum valid index at the time
|
|
the request is processed, and a subsequent request may have a different
|
|
maximum.
|
|
An example of this can be seen in mibII/sysORTable.c where the table is held
|
|
purely internally to the agent code, including its size (and hence the
|
|
maximum valid index). This maximum could also be retrieved via a system
|
|
call, or via a kernel data variable.
|
|
|
|
Data Retrieval
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
As with the scalar case, the other required function is to retrieve the data
|
|
requested. However, given the definition of a simple table this is simply a
|
|
matter of using the single, integer index sub-identifier to index into an
|
|
existing data structure. This index will always be the last index of the OID
|
|
returned by header_simple_table, so can be obtained as name[*length-1].
|
|
A good example of this type of table can be seen in ucd-snmp/disk.c
|
|
|
|
With some modules, this underlying table may be relatively large, or only
|
|
accessible via a slow or cumbersome interface. The implementation described
|
|
so far may prove unacceptably slow, particularly when walking a MIB tree
|
|
requires the table to be loaded afresh for each variable requested.
|
|
|
|
In these circumstances, a useful technique is to cache the table when it is
|
|
first read in, and use that cache for subsequent requests. This can be done
|
|
by having a separate routine to read in the table. This uses two static
|
|
variables, one a structure or array for the data itself, and the other an
|
|
additional timestamp to indicate when the table was last loaded. When a call
|
|
is made to this routine to "read" the table, it can first check whether the
|
|
cached table is "new enough". If so, it can return immediately, and the
|
|
system will use the cached data.
|
|
Only if the cached version is sufficiently old that it's probably out of
|
|
date, is it necessary to retrieve the current data, updating the cached
|
|
version and the timestamp value.
|
|
This is particularly useful if the data itself is relatively static, such as
|
|
a list of mounted filesystems. There is an example of this technique in the
|
|
Host Resources implementation.
|
|
|
|
As with the scalar case, mib2c simply provides placeholder dummy return
|
|
values. It's up to the programmer to fill in the details.
|
|
|
|
The next part concludes the examination of the detailed implementation by
|
|
looking at more general tables.
|
|
|
|
7. General Tables
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
Some table structures are not suitable for the simple table approach, due to
|
|
the failure of one or more of the assumptions listed earlier. Perhaps they
|
|
are indexed by something other than a single integer (such as a 4-octet IP
|
|
address), or the maximum index is not easily determinable (such as the
|
|
interfaces table), or not all indices are valid (running software), or the
|
|
necessary data is not directly accessible (interfaces again).
|
|
In such circumstances, a more general approach is needed. In contrast with
|
|
the two styles already covered, this style of module will commonly combine
|
|
the two functions of request validation and data retrieval. Note that mib2c
|
|
will assume the simple table case, and this will need to be corrected.
|
|
|
|
General table algorithm
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
The basic algorithm is as follows:
|
|
|
|
Perform any necessary initialization, then walk through the
|
|
underlying instances, retrieving the data for each one, until the
|
|
desired instance is found. If no valid entry is found, return
|
|
failure.
|
|
|
|
For an exact match (GET and similar), identifying the desired instance is
|
|
trivial - construct the OID (from the 'vp' variable parameter and the index
|
|
value or values), and see whether it matches the requested OID.
|
|
For GETNEXT, the situation is not quite so simple. Depending on the
|
|
underlying representation of the data, the entries may be returned in the
|
|
same order as they should appear in the table (i.e. lexically increasing by
|
|
index). However, this is not guaranteed, and the natural way of retrieving
|
|
the data may be in some "random" order. In this case, then the whole table
|
|
needs to be traversed for each request. in order to determine the
|
|
appropriate successor.
|
|
This random order is the worst case, and dictates the structure of the code
|
|
used in most currently implemented tables. The ordered case can be regarded
|
|
as a simplification of this more general one.
|
|
|
|
The algorithm outlined above can now be expanded into the following
|
|
pseudo-code:
|
|
|
|
Init_{Name}_Entry(); // Perform any necessary initialisation
|
|
|
|
while (( index = Get_Next_{Name}_Entry() ) != EndMarker ) {
|
|
// This steps through the underlying table,
|
|
// returning the current index,
|
|
// or some suitable end-marker when all
|
|
// the entries have been examined.
|
|
// Note that this routine should also return the
|
|
// data for this entry, either via a parameter
|
|
// or using some external location.
|
|
|
|
construct OID from vp->name and index
|
|
compare new OID and request
|
|
if valid {
|
|
save current data
|
|
if finished // exact match, or ordered table
|
|
break; // so don't look at any more entries
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Otherwise, we need to loop round, and examine
|
|
// the next entry in the table. Either because
|
|
// the entry wasn't valid for this request,
|
|
// or the entry was a possible "next" candidate,
|
|
// but we don't know that there isn't there's a
|
|
// better one later in the table.
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if no saved data // Nothing matched
|
|
return failure
|
|
|
|
// Otherwise, go on to the switch handling
|
|
// we've already covered in the earlier styles.
|
|
|
|
This is now very close to the actual code used in many current
|
|
implementations (such as the the routine header_ifEntry in
|
|
mibII/interfaces.c). Notice that the pseudo-code fragment if valid expands
|
|
in practise to
|
|
|
|
if ((exact && (result == 0)) ||
|
|
// GET request, and identical OIDs
|
|
(!exact && (result < 0)) )
|
|
// GETNEXT, and candidate OID is later
|
|
// than requested OID.
|
|
|
|
This is a very common expression, that can be seen in most of the table
|
|
implementations.
|
|
|
|
Notice also that the interfaces table returns immediately the first valid
|
|
entry is found, even for GETNEXT requests. This is because entries are
|
|
returned in lexical order, so the first succeeding entry will be the one
|
|
that's required.
|
|
(As an aside, this also means that the underlying data can be saved
|
|
implicitly within the 'next entry' routine - not very clean, but it saves
|
|
some unnecessary copying).
|
|
|
|
The more general case can be seen in the TCP and UDP tables (see mibII/tcp.c
|
|
and mibII/udp.c). Here, the if valid fragment expands to:
|
|
|
|
if ( exact && (result == 0)) {
|
|
// save results
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
else if (!exact && (result < 0)) {
|
|
if ( .... ) { // no saved OID, or this OID
|
|
// precedes the saved OID
|
|
// save this OID into 'lowest'
|
|
// save the results into Lowinpcb
|
|
// don't break, since we still need to look
|
|
// at the rest of the table
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
The GET match handling is just as we've already seen - is this the requested
|
|
OID or not. If so, save the results and move on to the switch statement.
|
|
The GETNEXT case is more complicated. As well as considering whether this
|
|
is a possible match (using the same test we've already seen), we also have to
|
|
check whether this is a better match than anything we've already seen. This
|
|
is done by comparing the current candidate (newname) with the best match found
|
|
so far (lowest).
|
|
Only if this extra comparison shows that the new OID is earlier than the
|
|
saved one, do we need to save both the new OID, and any associated data
|
|
(such as the inpcb block, and state flag). But having found one better
|
|
match, we don't know that there isn't an even better one later on. So we
|
|
can't break out of the enclosing loop - we need to keep going and examine
|
|
all the remaining entries of the table.
|
|
|
|
These two cases (the TCP and UDP tables) also show a more general style of
|
|
indexing. Rather than simply appending a single index value to the OID
|
|
prefix, these routines have to add the local four-octet IP address plus port
|
|
(and the same for the remote end in the case of the TCP table). This is the
|
|
purpose of the op and cp section of code that precedes the comparison.
|
|
|
|
These two are probably among the most complex cases you are likely to
|
|
encounter. If you can follow the code here, then you've probably cracked the
|
|
problem of understanding how the agent works.
|
|
|
|
Finally, the next part discusses how to implement a writable (or SETable)
|
|
object in a MIB module.
|
|
|
|
8. How to implement a SETable object
|
|
====================================
|
|
|
|
Finally, the only remaining area to cover is that of setting data - the
|
|
handling of SNMPSET. Particular care should be taken here for two reasons.
|
|
|
|
Firstly, any errors in the earlier sections can have limited effect. The
|
|
worst that is likely to happen is that the agent will either return invalid
|
|
information, or possibly crash. Either way, this is unlikely to affect the
|
|
operation of the workstation as a whole. If there are problems in the
|
|
writing routine, the results could be catastrophic (particularly if writing
|
|
data directly into kernel memory).
|
|
|
|
Secondly, this is the least well understood area of the agent, at least by
|
|
the author. There are relatively few variables that are defined as READ-WRITE
|
|
in the relevant MIBs, and even fewer that have actually been implemented as
|
|
such. I'm therefore describing this from a combination of my understanding
|
|
of how SETs ought to work, personal experience of very simple SET handling
|
|
and what's actually been done by others (which do not necessarily coincide).
|
|
|
|
There are also subtle differences between the setting of simple scalar
|
|
variables (or individual entries within a table), and the creation of a new
|
|
row within a table. This will therefore be considered separately.
|
|
|
|
With these caveats, and a healthy dose of caution, let us proceed. Note that
|
|
the UCD-SNMP development team can accept no responsibility for any damage or
|
|
loss resulting from either following or ignoring the information presented
|
|
here. You coded it - you fix it!
|
|
|
|
Write routine
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
The heart of SET handling is the write_method parameter from the variable
|
|
handling routine. This is a pointer to the relevant routine for setting the
|
|
variable in question. Mib2c will generate one such routine for each setable
|
|
variable. This routine should be declared using the template
|
|
|
|
int
|
|
write_variable(
|
|
int action,
|
|
u_char *var_val,
|
|
u_char var_val_type,
|
|
int var_val_len,
|
|
u_char *statP,
|
|
oid *name,
|
|
int name_len );
|
|
|
|
Most of these parameters are fairly self explanatory:
|
|
The last two hold the OID to be set, just as was passed to the main variable
|
|
routine.
|
|
|
|
The second, third and fourth parameters provide information about the new
|
|
desired value, both the type, value and length. This is very similar to the
|
|
way that results are returned from the main variable routine.
|
|
|
|
The return value of the routine is simply an indication of whether the
|
|
current stage of the SET was successful or not. We'll come back to this in a
|
|
minute. Note that it is the responsibility of this routine to check that the
|
|
OID and value provided are appropriate for the variable being implemented.
|
|
This includes (but is not limited to) checking:
|
|
|
|
* the OID is recognised as one this routine can handle
|
|
(this should be true if the routine only handles the one variable, and
|
|
there are no errors in the main variable routine or driving code, but
|
|
it does no harm to check).
|
|
* the value requested is the correct type expected for this OID
|
|
* the value requested is appropriate for this OID
|
|
(within particular ranges, suitable length, etc, etc)
|
|
|
|
There are two parameters remaining to be considered.
|
|
|
|
The fifth parameter, statP, is the value that would be returned from a GET
|
|
request on this particular variable. It could be used to check that the
|
|
requested new value is consistent with the current state, but its main use
|
|
is to denote that a new table row is being created.
|
|
In most cases (particularly when dealing with scalar values or single elements
|
|
of tables), you can normally simply ignore this parameter.
|
|
|
|
Actions
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
The final parameter to consider is the first one - action. To understand
|
|
this, it's necessary to know a bit about how SETs are implemented.
|
|
The design of SNMP calls for all variables in a SET request to be done "as
|
|
if simultaneously" - i.e. they should all succeed or all fail. However, in
|
|
practise, the variables are handled in succession. Thus, if one fails, it
|
|
must be possible to "undo" any changes made to the other variables in the
|
|
request.
|
|
This is a well understood requirement in the database world, and is usually
|
|
implemented using a "multi-stage commit". This is certainly the mechanism
|
|
expected within the SNMP community (and has been made explicit in the work
|
|
of the AgentX extensibility group). In other words, the routine to handle
|
|
setting a variable will be called more than once, and the routine must be
|
|
able to perform the appropriate actions depending on how far through the
|
|
process we currently are. This is determined by the value of the action
|
|
parameter.
|
|
|
|
This is implemented using three basic phases:
|
|
|
|
RESERVE is used to check the syntax of all the variables provided, that the
|
|
values being set are sensible and consistent, and to allocate any resources
|
|
required for performing the SET. After this stage, the expectation is that
|
|
the set ought to succeed, though this is not guaranteed.
|
|
(In fact, with the UCD agent, this is done in two passes - RESERVE1, and
|
|
RESERVE2, to allow for dependancies between variables).
|
|
|
|
If any of these calls fail (in either pass) the write routines are called
|
|
again with the FREE action, to release any resources that have been
|
|
allocated. The agent will then return a failure response to the requesting
|
|
application.
|
|
|
|
Assuming that the RESERVE phase was successful, the next stage is indicated
|
|
by the action value ACTION. This is used to actually implement the set
|
|
operation. However, this must either be done into temporary (persistent)
|
|
storage, or the previous value stored similarly, in case any of the
|
|
subsequent ACTION calls fail.
|
|
This can be seen in the example module, where both write routines have
|
|
static 'old' variables, to hold the previous value of the relevant object.
|
|
|
|
If the ACTION phase does fail (for example due to an apparently valid, but
|
|
unacceptable value, or an unforeseen problem), then the list of write
|
|
routines are called again, with the UNDO action. This requires the routine
|
|
to reset the value that was changed to its previous value (assuming it was
|
|
actually changed), and then to release any resources that had been
|
|
allocated. As with the FREE phase, the agent will then return an indication
|
|
of the error to the requesting application.
|
|
|
|
Only once the ACTION phase has completed successfully, can the final COMMIT
|
|
phase be run. This is used to complete any writes that were done into
|
|
temporary storage, and then release any allocated resources. Note that all
|
|
the code in this phase should be "safe" code that cannot possibly fail (cue
|
|
hysterical laughter). The whole intent of the ACTION/COMMIT division is that
|
|
all of the fallible code should be done in the ACTION phase, so that it can
|
|
be backed out if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Table row creation
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
What about creating new rows in a table, I hear you ask. Good Question.
|
|
This case can often be detected by the fact that a GET request would have
|
|
failed, and hence the fifth parameter, statP, will be null. This contrasts
|
|
with changing the values of an element of an existing row, when the statP
|
|
parameter would hold the previous value.
|
|
|
|
The details of precisely how to create a new row will clearly depend on the
|
|
underlying format of the table. However, one implementation strategy would
|
|
be as follows:
|
|
|
|
* The first column object to be SET would return a null value from the
|
|
var_name routine. This null statP parameter would be the signal
|
|
to create a new temporary instance of the underlying data structure,
|
|
filled with dummy values.
|
|
* Subsequent column objects would return pointers to the appropriate
|
|
field of this new data structure from the var_name routine,
|
|
which would then be filled in by the write routine.
|
|
* Once all the necessary fields had been SET, the completed temporary
|
|
instance could be moved into the "standard" structure (or copied,
|
|
or otherwise used to set things up appropriately).
|
|
|
|
However, this is purely a theoretical strategy, and has not been tried
|
|
by the author. No guarantees are given as to whether this would actually
|
|
work. There are also questions regarding how to handle incomplete
|
|
or overlapping SET requests.
|
|
Anyone who has experience of doing this, please get in touch!
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
And that's it. Congratulations for getting this far. If you understand
|
|
everything that's been said, then you now know as much as the rest of us
|
|
about the inner workings of the UCD-SNMP agent. (Well, very nearly).
|
|
All that remains is to try putting this into practise. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
And if you've found this helpful, gifts of money, chocolate, alcohol, and
|
|
above all feedback, would be most appreciated :-)
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Copyright 1999, 2000 - D.T.Shield.
|
|
Not to be distributed without the explicit permission of the author.
|