Bender and GRUB1 "legacy"
Valery V. Sedletski
_valerius at ...73...
Fri Feb 23 18:47:17 CET 2018
On 23.02.2018 14:55, Norman Feske wrote:
> Hello Valery,
> I have the impression that your undertaking goes very much against the
> grain of our regular work flow. Frankly speaking, I miss the point of
> bypassing our tooling and instead manually working with boot modules. We
> deliberately moved away from relying on the boot loader to load
> individual ROM modules, for a number of reasons:
> 1. Not all kernels provide the a way for roottask (Genode's core) to
> access individual boot modules. In particular seL4 or OKL4 do not.
> 2. On ARM there is not such concept. Boot loaders on ARM load a kernel
> image only.
> 3. For the reasons above, Genode has to provide a way to include the
> initial ROM modules in the boot image. Using this mechanism across
> all base platforms reduces Genode's complexity and ensures that the
> solution is well tested. In contrast, the prior used kernel-specific
> code was more fragile.
> 4. We hit limitations of several multi-boot loaders. E.g., I am thinking
> of the GRUB's maximum number of boot modules. With iPXE, we hit
> different surprises such as a slightly different convention of how
> boot modules are named. By using one unified mechanism, we rule out
> these sources of trouble.
> 5. Shuffling boot modules manually is bug prone. By letting a run script
> generate one image that contains all needed ingredients in their
> current version eliminates the chance for inconsistencies between
> the modules.
This all is understandable, and I'm aware of the most of all this
background. But on x86 and
the usual foc/nova kernels, the limitations of ARM bootloaders and some
are not the case. Yes, GRUB has a limitation of 99 modules max. In my
based loader I increased it to 200, or so. It was sufficient for my use
cases (I wrote
a multiboot kernel allowing to boot OS/2 with GRUB-like loaders. It
required about 70 modules,
and it was sufficient).
> In short, we went into the deep end, experienced the limits of the
> multi-boot approach, and decided for a more robust approach. Our tooling
> reflects that. It makes it arguably difficult to edit init's
> configuration on the fly - as you noted - and requires you to execute
> the run script after each change. You present this as a limitation. But
> I regard the approach of mutating the boot image manually as misguided.
> It is not only bug prone but also evades the versioning of the
> individual modifications. In contrast, if you embrace the work with run
> scripts, you can always reproduce your scenario and naturally track
> modifications using Git.
Yes, this all is understandable too. But I cannot run the "run" scripts
after I changed the configuration. If they are contained inside the core
it requires it to be rebuilt. But I cannot rebuild the image without
access to my
development machine. I don't change binaries, I mostly change the
files. I usually update the binaries after changing them and
recompiling, so all
binaries should be of the latest version. (this is regarding the versioning)
So, the reason why I want to bypass the build system is because ATM, I
spare machine with Intel AMT technology, so I cannot deploy the image
with the run script, to my test machine, automatically. (I think that
outside the core Genode team have no ThinkPads with Intel AMT Support. I
one ThinkPad, but it is used to run my development Linux system, and it
desirable to reboot it each time. My third test machine is Asus Core2Duo
with Intel chipset and Nvidia video card, so it has no Intel AMT
support.) So, I just
copy the image manually to my bootable flash stick, and trying to boot
it on my test machine,
manually. To avoid regenerating "core" image, I'd like to split it back
to separate files.
So, regenerating the image each time after each "config" change is not
This would require copying all the big "core" image to the flash stick,
which is too
long (and requires access to my development machine). That's why I want to
have "core" to be disassembled to separate files. This is simply more
my specific case) to edit "config" files only, without the need to
copying the image over. So, I'd like to have a possibility to bypass the
But if it's not possible via standard options in etc/boot.conf, I'd like
at least a way
to create the "core" image without any modules included. I modified the
a bit, but It does not like an empty modules list. So, my last question
was how would
I create the image with an empty modules list. I see "run" tool
generating an assembler
file with the module list. Is it possible to have it empty somehow?
>> PS: A feature request for Genode build system: May be, it would be good
>> to add options for etc/build.conf, to disable removing the "genode"
>> subdirectory, containing all the binaries, plus optionally generate
>> "core" together with "image.elf", so that it will generate a core image
>> without embedded modules. It would be more convenient if a developer
>> wants to copy modules to some GRUB installation manually. So, one can
>> run the run script to generate both the "image.elf" and separate
>> binaries. This would allow both to 1) deploy the scenario on test
>> machine automatically and 2) copy the scenario manually to GRUB config
>> file. For manual copying, it would be more convenient to have separate
>> binaries, so they are not duplicated in each scenario image.elf images,
>> which both take much space on disk, and the same binaries can be reused
>> in many scenarios. Also, with all modules built into the "image.elf", it
>> is not very comfortable to edit the "config" files without regenerating
>> the "image.elf".
> The latter point was indeed a concern we had when unifying the
> boot-module handling. However, on closer inspection, we found three
> possible scenarios where the mechanism is used:
> 1. The majority of run scripts are test cases. They are small and are
> executed ad-hoc (or automatically) but are never permanently
> installed. So sharing binaries across scenarios would not give
> any benefit.
But still all the binaries, except the test itself, can be shared. The
tests use the same "general" components (which are under test)
as other scenarios.
> 2. Run scripts that describe self-sustaining systems, like the
> Turmvilla scenario. Here we have a large base system consisting of
> many boot modules, maybe even including virtual disk images.
> This situation likely corresponds to your's. It would be nice to
> reuse selected boot modules (like a virtual disk image) between
> scenarios. The single-image approach is clearly limiting.
> 3. Run scripts that create the boot image of a multi-stage scenario,
> like the Sculpt scenario. Here, the boot image contains merely the
> components needed to bootstrap a second stage from within Genode.
> The initial boot image features a block-device driver, file system,
> and fs-rom server. The interesting part happens at a second stage
> where the Genode system can access information from the disk
> Of these three cases, only the second one would really benefit from
> loading individual ROM modules as multi-boot modules. Based on our
> experience with Turmvilla, we figured that scenarios of this type -
> where a complex system is bootstrapped by the boot loader only - do not
> scale well. Since the direction is inherently limiting, we should stop
> pursing it but instead embrace systems of the third type.
> With Sculpt as the most prominent example of third type, one can already
> see the benefits. Thanks to fetching all ingredients from the depot,
> executing the run script is fast. The resulting boot image is quite
> small (less than 20 MiB) and will stay small even when the second-stage
> system grows. The potential benefit of sharing parts of it between
> multiple scenario is negligible.
> I hope that this background sheds some light on our line of thoughts
> that went into the boot-module handling of Genode. Please understand
> that we won't like to go back to supporting earlier approaches that
> haven't worked out for us.
Most scenarios are still of case "2". Dynamic scenarios of case "3"
are not common yet. It seems, only "Sculpt" belong to this class.
BTW, I cannot run both "Sculpt" and "VirtualBox" and "Seoul"
scenarios, so far. NOVA seems to hang on my three available
machines, for some reason. So, I tried the Fiasco.OC kernel instead.
(But VirtualBox and Seoul are working on NOVA only). So far, my
attempts to run Sculpt was not successfull too. It looks like acpi_drv
does not like something in ACPI tables of my test machine.
More information about the users