mirror of
https://github.com/genodelabs/genode.git
synced 2024-12-24 07:46:42 +00:00
3e8e55ec16
- if no affinity was set for a new thread before calling Cpu_session::start(), the CPU session's affinity gets set for this thread - documentation fix: <affinity_space> -> <affinity-space> Fixes #873.
996 lines
52 KiB
Plaintext
996 lines
52 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
===============================================
|
|
Release notes for the Genode OS Framework 13.08
|
|
===============================================
|
|
|
|
Genode Labs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The release of version 13.08 marks the 5th anniversary of the Genode OS
|
|
framework. We celebrate this anniversary with the addition of three major
|
|
features that we have much longed for, namely the port of Qt5 to Genode,
|
|
profound multi-processor support, and a light-weight event tracing
|
|
framework. Additionally, the new version comes with new device drivers for
|
|
SATA 3.0 and power management for the Exynos-5 SoC, improved virtualization
|
|
support on NOVA on x86, updated kernels, and integrity checks for
|
|
downloaded 3rd-party source code.
|
|
|
|
Over the course of the past five years, Genode's development was primarily
|
|
motivated by adding and cultivating features to make the framework fit for as
|
|
many application areas as possible. Now that we have a critical mass of
|
|
features, the focus on mere functionality does not suffice anymore. The
|
|
question of what Genode can do ultimately turns into the question of how well
|
|
Genode can do something: How stable is a certain workload? How does networking
|
|
perform? How does it scale to multi-processor systems? Because we are lacking
|
|
concise answers to these kind of questions, we have to investigate.
|
|
|
|
When talking about stability, our recently introduced automated testing
|
|
infrastructure makes us more confident than ever. Each night, over 200
|
|
automated tests are performed, covering various kernels and several hardware
|
|
platforms. All those tests are publicly available in the form of so-called run
|
|
scripts and are under continues development.
|
|
|
|
Regarding performance investigations, recently we have begun to benchmark
|
|
application performance focusing on network throughput. Interestingly, our
|
|
measurements reveal significant differences between the used kernels, but
|
|
also shortcomings in our software stack. For example, currently we see that
|
|
our version of lwIP performs poorly with gigabit networking. To thoroughly
|
|
investigate such performance issues, the current version adds support
|
|
for tracing the behaviour of Genode components. This will allow us to get a
|
|
profound understanding of all inter-component interaction that are on the
|
|
critical path for the performance of complex application-level workloads.
|
|
Thanks to the Genode architecture, we could come up with a strikingly simple,
|
|
yet powerful design for a tracing facility. Section
|
|
[Light-weight event tracing] explains how it works.
|
|
|
|
When it comes to multi-processor scalability, we used to shy away from such
|
|
inquiries because, honestly, we haven't paid much consideration to it. This
|
|
view has changed by now. With the current release, we implemented the
|
|
management of CPU affinities right into the heart of the framework, i.e.,
|
|
Genode's session concept. Additionally, we cracked a damn hard nut by enabling
|
|
Genode to use multiple CPUs on the NOVA hypervisor. This kernel is by far the
|
|
most advanced Open-Source microkernel for the x86 architecture. However,
|
|
NOVA's MP model seemed to inherently contradict with the API design of Genode.
|
|
Fortunately, we found a fairly elegant way to go forward and we're able to
|
|
tame the beast. Section [Enhanced multi-processor support] goes into more
|
|
detail.
|
|
|
|
Functionality-wise, we always considered the availability of Qt on Genode as a
|
|
big asset. With the current release, we are happy to announce that we finally
|
|
made the switch from Qt4 to Qt5. Section [Qt5 available on all kernels] gives
|
|
insights into the challenges that we faced during porting work.
|
|
|
|
In addition to those highlights, the new version comes with improvements all
|
|
over the place. To name a few, there are improved support for POSIX threads,
|
|
updated device drivers, an updated version of the Fiasco.OC kernel and
|
|
L4Linux, and new device drivers for Exynos-5. Finally, the problem of
|
|
verifying the integrity of downloaded 3rd-party source codes has been
|
|
addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qt5 available on all kernels
|
|
############################
|
|
|
|
Since its integration with Genode version 9.02, Qt4 is regarded as
|
|
one of the most prominent features of the framework. For users, combining Qt
|
|
with Genode makes the world of sophisticated GUI-based end-user applications
|
|
available on various microkernels. For Genode developers, Qt represents by far
|
|
the most complex work load natively executed on top of the framework API,
|
|
thereby stressing the underlying system in any way imaginable. We have been
|
|
keeping an eye on Qt version 5 for a while and highly anticipate the direction
|
|
where Qt is heading. We think that the time is right to leave Qt4 behind to
|
|
embrace Qt5 for Genode.
|
|
|
|
For the time being, both Qt4 and Qt5 are available for Genode, but Qt4 is
|
|
declared as deprecated and will be removed with the upcoming version 13.11.
|
|
Since Qt5 is almost API compatible to Qt4, the migration path is relatively
|
|
smooth. So we recommend to move your applications over to Qt5 during the
|
|
next release cycle.
|
|
|
|
In the following, we briefly describe the challenges we faced while adding Qt5
|
|
support to Genode, point you to the place where to find Qt5 in the source
|
|
tree, and give quick-start instructions for getting a Qt5 application
|
|
scenario running.
|
|
|
|
We found that the biggest architectural difference between version 4 and
|
|
version 5 is the use of the so-called Qt Platform Abstraction (QPA) interface,
|
|
which replaces the former Qt Window System (QWS).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moving from QWS to QPA
|
|
======================
|
|
|
|
With Qt4, we relied on QWS
|
|
to perform the window handling. A Qt4 application used to create a session to
|
|
Genode's GUI server (called nitpicker) and applied its graphical output onto a
|
|
virtual framebuffer. The virtual framebuffer was not visible per se. To make
|
|
portions of the virtual framebuffer visible on screen, the application had to
|
|
create so-called nitpicker views. A view is a rectangular area of the physical
|
|
screen that displays a (portion of) the virtual framebuffer. The position,
|
|
size, and stacking order of views is managed by the application. For each Qt
|
|
window, the application would simply create a corresponding nitpicker view and
|
|
maintain the consistency of the view with the geometry of the Qt window. Even
|
|
though each Qt application seemingly operated as a full-screen application
|
|
with the windows managed by the application-local QWS, the use of nitpicker
|
|
views still allowed the integration of any number of Qt applications into one
|
|
windowed environment.
|
|
|
|
With the advent of compositing window managers, the typical way of how an
|
|
application interacts with the window system of the OS changed. Whereas
|
|
old-generation GUIs relied on a tight interplay of the application with the
|
|
window server in order to re-generate newly exposed window regions whenever
|
|
needed (e.g., revealing the window content previously covered by another
|
|
window), the modern model of a GUI server keeps all pixels of all windows in
|
|
memory regardless of whether the window is visible or covered by other
|
|
windows. The use of one pixel buffer per window seems wasteful with respect to
|
|
memory usage when many large windows are overlapping each other. On the other
|
|
hand, this technique largely simplifies GUI servers and makes the
|
|
implementation of fancy effects, like translucent windows, straight forward.
|
|
Since memory is cheap, the Qt developers abandoned the old method and fully
|
|
embraced the buffer-per-window approach by the means of QPA.
|
|
|
|
For Genode, we faced the challenge that we don't have a window server
|
|
in the usual sense. With nitpicker, we have a GUI server, but with a more
|
|
radical design. In particular, nitpicker leaves the management of window
|
|
geometries and stacking to the client. In contrast, QPA expects the window
|
|
system to provide both means for a user to interactively change the window
|
|
layout and a way for an application to define the properties (such as the
|
|
geometry, title, and visibility) of its windows.
|
|
The obviously missing piece was the software component that deals with window
|
|
controls. Fortunately, we already have a bunch of native nitpicker applications
|
|
that come with client-side window controls, in particular the so-called liquid
|
|
framebuffer (liquid_fb). This nitpicker client presents a virtual framebuffer
|
|
in form of a proper window on screen and, in turn, provides a framebuffer and
|
|
input service. These services can be used by other Genode processes, for
|
|
example, another nested instance of nitpicker.
|
|
This way, liquid_fb lends itself to be the interface between the nitpicker
|
|
GUI server and QPA.
|
|
|
|
For each QPA window, the application creates a new liquid_fb instance as a
|
|
child process. The liquid_fb instance will request a dedicated nitpicker
|
|
session, which gets routed through the application towards the parent of the
|
|
application, which eventually routes the request to the nitpicker GUI server.
|
|
Finally, the liquid_fb instance announces its input and framebuffer services
|
|
to its parent, which happens to be the application. Now, the application is
|
|
able to use those services in order to access the window. Because the
|
|
liquid_fb instances are children of the application, the application can
|
|
impose control over those. In particular, it can update the liquid_fb
|
|
configuration including the window geometry and title at any time. Thanks to
|
|
Genode's dynamic reconfiguration mechanism, the liquid_fb instances are able
|
|
to promptly respond to such reconfigurations.
|
|
|
|
Combined, those mechanisms give the application a way to receive user input
|
|
(via the input services provided by the liquid_fb instances), perform
|
|
graphical output (via the virtual framebuffers provided by the liquid_fb
|
|
instances), and define window properties (by dynamically changing the
|
|
respective liquid_fb configurations). At the same time, the user can use
|
|
liquid_fb's window controls to move, stack, and resize application windows as
|
|
expected.
|
|
|
|
[image qt5_screenshot]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steps of porting Qt5
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
Besides the switch to QPA, the second major change was related to the build
|
|
system. For the porting work, we use a Linux host system to obtain the
|
|
starting point for the build rules. The Qt4 build system would initially
|
|
generate all Makefiles, which could be inspected and processed at once. In
|
|
contrast, Qt5 generates Makefiles during the build process whenever needed.
|
|
When having configured Qt for Genode, however, the build on Linux will
|
|
ultimately fail. So the much-desired intermediate Makefiles won't be created.
|
|
The solution was to have 'configure' invoke 'qmake -r' instead of 'qmake'.
|
|
This way, qmake project files will be processed recursively. A few additional
|
|
tweaks were needed to avoid qmake from backing out because of missing
|
|
dependencies (qt5_configuration.patch). To enable the build of the Qt tools
|
|
out of tree, qmake-specific files had to be slightly adapted
|
|
(qt5_tools.patch). Furthermore, qtwebkit turned out to use code-generation
|
|
tools quite extensively during the build process. On Genode, we perform this
|
|
step during the 'make prepare' phase when downloading and integrating the Qt
|
|
source code with the Genode source tree.
|
|
|
|
For building Qt5 on Genode, we hit two problems. First, qtwebkit depends on
|
|
the ICU (International Components for Unicode) library, which was promptly
|
|
ported and can be found in the libports repository. Second, qtwebkit
|
|
apparently dropped the support of the 'QThread' API in favor of
|
|
POSIX-thread support only. For this reason, we had to extend the coverage
|
|
of Genode's pthread library to fulfill the needs of qtwebkit.
|
|
|
|
Once built, we entered the territory of debugging problems at runtime.
|
|
* We hit a memory-corruption problem caused by an assumption of 'QArrayData'
|
|
with regard to the alignment of memory allocated via malloc. As a
|
|
work-around, we weakened the assumptions to 4-byte alignment
|
|
(qt5_qarraydata.patch).
|
|
* Page faults in QWidgetAnimator caused by
|
|
use-after-free problems. Those could be alleviated by adding pointer
|
|
checks (qt5_qwidgetanimator.patch).
|
|
* Page faults caused by the slot function 'QWidgetWindow::updateObjectName()'
|
|
with a 'this' pointer of an incompatible type 'QDesktopWidget*'.
|
|
As a workaround, we avoid this condition by delegating the
|
|
'QWidgetWindow::event()' that happened to trigger the slot method to
|
|
'QWindow' (base class of 'QWidgetWindow') rather than to a
|
|
'QDesktopWidget' member (qt5_qwidgetwindow.patch).
|
|
* We observed that Arora presented web sites incomplete, or including HTTP
|
|
headers. During the evaluation of HTTP data, a signal was sent to another
|
|
thread, which activated a "user provided download buffer" for optimization
|
|
purposes. On Linux, the receiving thread was immediately scheduled and
|
|
everything went fine. However, on some kernels used by Genode, scheduling
|
|
is different, so that the original thread continued to execute a bit longer,
|
|
ultimately triggering a race condition. As a workaround, we disabled the
|
|
"user provided download buffer" optimization.
|
|
* Page faults in the JavaScript engine of Webkit. The JavaScript
|
|
'RegExp.exec()' function returned invalid string objects. We worked around
|
|
this issue by deactivating the JIT compiler for the processing of
|
|
regular expressions (ENABLE_YARR_JIT).
|
|
|
|
The current state of the Qt5 port is fairly complete. It covers the core, gui,
|
|
jscore, network, script, scriptclassic, sql, ui, webcore, webkit, widgets,
|
|
wtf, and xml modules. That said, there are a few known limitations and
|
|
differences compared to Qt4. First, the use of one liquid_fb instance per
|
|
window consumes more memory compared to the use of QWS in Qt4. Furthermore,
|
|
external window movements are not recognized by our QPA implementation yet.
|
|
This can cause popup menus to appear at unexpected positions. Key repeat is
|
|
not yet handled. The 'QNitpickerViewWidget' is not yet adapted to Qt5. For this
|
|
reason, qt_avplay is not working yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test drive
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
Unlike Qt4, which was hosted in the dedicated 'qt4' repository, Qt5 is
|
|
integrated in the libports repository. It can be downloaded and integrated
|
|
into the Genode build system by issuing 'make prepare' from within the
|
|
libports repository. The Qt5 versions of the known Qt examples are located at
|
|
libports/src/app/qt5. Ready-to-use run scripts for those examples are available
|
|
at libports/run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Migration away from Qt4 to Qt5
|
|
==============================
|
|
|
|
The support for Qt4 for Genode has been declared as deprecated. By default,
|
|
it's use is inhibited to avoid name aliasing problems between both versions.
|
|
Any attempt to build a qt4-based target will result in a message:
|
|
!Skip target app/qt_launchpad because it requires qt4_deprecated
|
|
To re-enable the use of Qt4, the SPEC value qt4_deprecated must be defined
|
|
manually for the build directory:
|
|
!echo "SPECS += qt4_deprecated" >> etc/specs.conf
|
|
|
|
We will keep the qt4 repository in the source tree during the current
|
|
release cycle. It will be removed with version 13.11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light-weight event tracing
|
|
##########################
|
|
|
|
With Genode application scenarios getting increasingly sophisticated,
|
|
the need for thorough performance analysis has come into spotlight.
|
|
Such scenarios entail the interaction of many components.
|
|
For example, with our recent work on optimizing network performance, we
|
|
have to consider several possible attack points:
|
|
|
|
* Device driver: Is the device operating in the proper mode? Are there
|
|
CPU-intensive operations such as allocations within the critical path?
|
|
* Interface to the device driver: How frequent are context switches between
|
|
client and device driver? Is the interface designed appropriately for
|
|
the access patterns?
|
|
* TCP/IP stack: How does the data flow from the raw packet level to the
|
|
socket level? How dominant are synchronization costs between the involved
|
|
threads? Are there costly in-band operations performed, e.g., dynamic
|
|
memory allocations per packet?
|
|
* C runtime: How does integration of the TCP/IP stack with the C runtime
|
|
work, for example how does the socket API interfere with timeout
|
|
handling during 'select' calls?
|
|
* Networking application
|
|
* Timer server: How often is the timer consulted by the involved components?
|
|
What is the granularity of timeouts and thereby the associated costs for
|
|
handling them?
|
|
* Interaction with core: What is the profile of the component's interaction
|
|
with core's low-level services?
|
|
|
|
This example is just an illustration. Most real-world performance-critical
|
|
scenarios have a similar or even larger scope. With our traditional
|
|
tools, it is hardly possible to gather a holistic view of the scenario. Hence,
|
|
finding performance bottlenecks tends to be a series of hit-and-miss
|
|
experiments, which is a tiresome and costly endeavour.
|
|
|
|
To overcome this situation, we need the ability to gather traces of component
|
|
interactions. Therefore, we started investigating the design of a tracing
|
|
facility for Genode one year ago while posing the following requirements:
|
|
|
|
* Negligible impact on the performance, no side effects:
|
|
For example, performing a system call per traced event
|
|
is out of question because this would severely influence the flow of
|
|
control (as the system call may trigger the kernel to take a scheduling
|
|
decision) and the execution time of the traced code, not to speak of
|
|
the TLB and cache footprint.
|
|
|
|
* Kernel independence: We want to use the same tracing facility across
|
|
all supported base platforms.
|
|
|
|
* Accountability of resources: It must be clearly defined where the
|
|
resources for trace buffers come from. Ideally, the tracing tool should be
|
|
able to dimension the buffers according to its needs and, in turn, pay for
|
|
the buffers.
|
|
|
|
* Suitable level of abstraction: Only if the trace contains information at
|
|
the right level of abstraction, it can be interpreted for large scenarios.
|
|
A counter example is the in-kernel trace buffer of the Fiasco.OC kernel,
|
|
which logs kernel-internal object names and a few message words when tracing
|
|
IPC messages, but makes it almost impossible to map this low-level
|
|
information to the abstraction of the control flow of RPC calls. In
|
|
contrast, we'd like to capture the names of invoked RPC calls (which is an
|
|
abstraction level the kernel is not aware of). This requirement implies the
|
|
need to have useful trace points generated automatically. Ideally those
|
|
trace points should cover all interactions of a component with the outside
|
|
world.
|
|
|
|
* (Re-)definition of tracing policies at runtime: The
|
|
question of which information to gather when a trace point is passed
|
|
should not be solely defined at compile time. Instead of changing static
|
|
instrumentations in the code, we'd prefer to have a way to configure
|
|
the level of detail and possible conditions for capturing events at runtime,
|
|
similar to dtrace. This way, a series of different hypotheses could be
|
|
tested by just changing the tracing policy instead of re-building and
|
|
rebooting the entire scenario.
|
|
|
|
* Straight-forward implementation: We found that most existing tracing
|
|
solutions are complicated. For example, dtrace comes with a virtual
|
|
machine for the sandboxed interpretation of policy code. Another typical
|
|
source of complexity is the synchronization of trace-buffer accesses.
|
|
Because for Genode, low TCB complexity is of utmost importance, the
|
|
simplicity of the implementation is the prerequisite to make it an
|
|
integral part of the base system.
|
|
|
|
* Support for both online and offline analysis of traces.
|
|
|
|
We are happy to report to have come up with a design that meets all those
|
|
requirements thanks to the architecture of Genode. In the following, we
|
|
present the key aspects of the design.
|
|
|
|
The tracing facility comes in the form of a new TRACE service implemented
|
|
in core. Using this service, a TRACE client can gather information about
|
|
available tracing subjects (existing or no-longer existing threads),
|
|
define trace buffers and policies and assign those to tracing subjects,
|
|
obtain access to trace-buffer contents, and control the tracing state
|
|
of tracing subjects. When a new thread is created via a CPU session, the
|
|
thread gets registered at a global registry of potential tracing sources. Each
|
|
TRACE service manages a session-local registry of so-called trace subjects.
|
|
When requested by the TRACE client, it queries new tracing sources from the
|
|
source registry and obtains references to the corresponding threads. This way,
|
|
the TRACE session becomes able to control the thread's tracing state.
|
|
|
|
To keep the tracing overhead as low as possible, we assign a separate trace
|
|
buffer to each individually traced thread. The trace buffer is a shared memory
|
|
block mapped to the virtual address space of the thread's process. Capturing
|
|
an event comes down to a write operation into the thread-local buffer. Because
|
|
of the use of shared memory for the trace buffer, no system call is needed and
|
|
because the buffer is local to the traced thread, there is no need for
|
|
synchronizing the access to the buffer. When no tracing is active, a thread
|
|
has no trace buffer. The buffer gets installed only when tracing is started.
|
|
The buffer is not installed magically from the outside of the traced process
|
|
but from the traced thread itself when passing a trace point. To detect
|
|
whether to install a new trace buffer, there exists a so-called trace-control
|
|
dataspace shared between the traced process and its CPU service. This
|
|
dataspace contains control bits for each thread created via the CPU session.
|
|
The control bits are evaluated each time a trace point is passed by the
|
|
thread. When the thread detects a change of the tracing state, it actively
|
|
requests the new trace buffer from the CPU session and installs it into its
|
|
address space. The same technique is used for loading the code for tracing
|
|
policies into the traced process. The traced thread actively checks for
|
|
policy-version updates by evaluating the trace-control bits. If an update is
|
|
detected, the new policy code is requested from the CPU session. The policy
|
|
code comes in the form of position-independent code, which gets mapped into
|
|
the traced thread's address space by the traced thread itself. Once mapped,
|
|
a trace point will call the policy code. When called, the policy
|
|
module code returns the data to be captured into the trace buffer. The
|
|
relationship between the trace monitor (the client of TRACE service), core's
|
|
TRACE service, core's CPU service, and the traced process is depicted in
|
|
Figure [trace_control].
|
|
|
|
[image trace_control]
|
|
|
|
There is one trace-control dataspace per CPU session, which gets accounted
|
|
to the CPU session's quota. The resources needed for the
|
|
trace-buffer dataspaces and the policy dataspaces are paid-for by the
|
|
TRACE client. On session creation, the TRACE client can specify the amount
|
|
of its own RAM quota to be donated to the TRACE service in core. This
|
|
enables the TRACE client to define trace buffers and policies of arbitrary
|
|
sizes, limited only by its own RAM quota.
|
|
|
|
In Genode, the interaction of a process with its outside world is
|
|
characterized by its use of inter-process communication, namely synchronous
|
|
RPC, signals, and access to shared memory. For the former two types of
|
|
inter-process communication, Genode generates trace points automatically. RPC
|
|
clients generate trace points when an RPC call is issued and when a call
|
|
returned. RPC servers generate trace points in the RPC dispatcher, capturing
|
|
incoming RPC requests as well as RPC replies. Thanks to Genode's RPC
|
|
framework, we are able to capture the names of the RPC functions in the RPC
|
|
trace points. This information is obtained from the declarations of the RPC
|
|
interfaces. For signals, trace points are generated for submitting and
|
|
receiving signals. Those trace points form a useful base line for gathering
|
|
tracing data. In addition, manual trace points can be inserted into the code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of the implementation
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
The implementation of Genode's tracing facility is surprisingly low complex.
|
|
The addition to the base system (core as well as the base library) are
|
|
merely 1500 lines of code. The mechanism works across all base platforms.
|
|
|
|
Because the TRACE client provides the policy code and trace buffer to the
|
|
traced thread, the TRACE client imposes ultimate control over the traced
|
|
thread. In contrast to dtrace, which sandboxes the trace policy, we express
|
|
the policy module in the form of code executed in the context of the traced
|
|
thread. However, in contrast to dtrace, such code is never loaded into a large
|
|
monolithic kernel, but solely into the individually traced processes. So the
|
|
risk of a misbehaving policy is constrained to the traced process.
|
|
|
|
In the current form, the TRACE service of core should be considered as a
|
|
privileged service because the trace-subject namespace of each session
|
|
contains all threads of the system. Therefore, TRACE sessions should be routed
|
|
only for trusted processes. In the future, we plan to constrain the
|
|
namespaces for tracing subjects per TRACE session.
|
|
|
|
The TRACE session interface is located at base/include/trace_session/.
|
|
A simple example for using the service is available at os/src/test/trace/
|
|
and is accompanied with the run script os/run/trace.run. The test
|
|
demonstrates the TRACE session interface by gathering a trace of a thread
|
|
running locally in its address space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enhanced multi-processor support
|
|
################################
|
|
|
|
Multi-processor (MP) support is one of those features that most users take for
|
|
granted. MP systems are so ubiquitous, even on mobile platforms, that a
|
|
limitation to utilizing a single CPU only is almost a fallacy.
|
|
That said, MP support in operating systems is hard to get right. For this
|
|
reason, we successively deferred the topic on the agenda of Genode's
|
|
road map.
|
|
|
|
For some base platforms such as the Linux or Codezero kernels, Genode
|
|
always used to support SMP because the kernel would manage the affinity
|
|
of threads to CPU cores transparently to the user-level process. So on
|
|
these kernels, there was no need to add special support into the framework.
|
|
|
|
However, on most microkernels, the situation is vastly different. The
|
|
developers of such kernels try hard to avoid complexity in the kernel and
|
|
rightfully argue that in-kernel affinity management would contribute to kernel
|
|
complexity. Another argument is that, in contrast to monolithic kernels that
|
|
have a global view on the system and an "understanding" of the concerns of the
|
|
user processes, a microkernel is pretty clueless when it comes to the roles
|
|
and behaviours of individual user-level threads. Not knowing whether a thread
|
|
works as a device driver, an interactive program, or a batch process, the
|
|
microkernel is not in the position to form a reasonably useful model of the
|
|
world, onto which it could intelligently apply scheduling and affinity
|
|
heuristics. In fact, from the perspective of a microkernel, each thread does
|
|
nothing else than sending and receiving messages, and causing page faults.
|
|
|
|
For these reasons, microkernel developers tend to provide the bootstrapping
|
|
procedure for the physical CPUs and a basic mechanism to assign
|
|
threads to CPUs but push the rest of the problem to the user space, i.e.,
|
|
Genode. The most straight-forward way would make all physical CPUs visible
|
|
to all processes and require the user or system integrator to assign
|
|
physical CPUs when a thread is created. However, on the recursively
|
|
structured Genode system, we virtualize resources at each level, which
|
|
calls for a different approach. Section [Management of CPU affinities]
|
|
explains our solution.
|
|
|
|
When it comes to inter-process communication on MP systems, there is a
|
|
certain diversity among the kernel designs. Some kernels allow the user land
|
|
to use synchronous IPC between arbitrary threads, regardless of whether both
|
|
communication partners reside on the same CPU or on two different CPUs. This
|
|
convenient model is provided by Fiasco.OC. However, other kernels do not offer
|
|
any synchronous IPC mechanism across CPU cores at all, NOVA being a poster
|
|
child of this school of thought. If a user land is specifically designed for
|
|
a particular kernel, those peculiarities can be just delegated to the
|
|
application developers. For example, the NOVA user land called NUL is designed
|
|
such that a recipient of IPC messages spawns a dedicated thread on each
|
|
physical CPU. In contrast, Genode is meant to provide a unified API that
|
|
works well across various different kernels. To go forward, we had four
|
|
options:
|
|
|
|
# Not fully supporting the entity of API semantics across all base platforms.
|
|
For example, we could stick with the RPC API for synchronous communication
|
|
between threads. Programs just would happen to fail on some base platforms
|
|
when the called server resides on a different CPU. This would effectively
|
|
push the problem to the system integrator. The downside would be the
|
|
sacrifice of Genode's nice feature that a program developed
|
|
on one kernel usually works well on other kernels without any changes.
|
|
|
|
# Impose the semantics provided by the most restrictive kernel onto all
|
|
users of the Genode API. Whereas this approach would facilitate that
|
|
programs behave consistently across all base platforms, the restrictions
|
|
would be artificially imposed onto all Genode users, in particular the
|
|
users of kernels with less restrictions. Of course, we don't change
|
|
the Genode API lightheartedly, which attributes to our hesitance to go
|
|
into this direction.
|
|
|
|
# Hiding kernel restrictions behind the Genode API. This approach could come
|
|
in many different shapes. For example, Genode could transparently spawn a
|
|
thread on each CPU when a single RPC entrypoint gets created, following
|
|
the model of NUL. Or Genode could emulate synchronous IPC using the core
|
|
process as a proxy.
|
|
|
|
# Adapting the kernel to the requirements of Genode. That is, persuading
|
|
kernel developers to implement the features we find convenient, i.e., adding
|
|
a cross-CPU IPC feature to NOVA. History shows that our track record in
|
|
doing that is not stellar.
|
|
|
|
Because each of those options is like opening a different can of worms, we
|
|
used to defer the solution of the problem. Fortunately, however, we finally
|
|
kicked off a series of practical experiments, which led to a fairly elegant
|
|
solution, which is detailed in Section
|
|
[Adding multi-processor support to Genode on NOVA].
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management of CPU affinities
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
In line with our experience of supporting
|
|
[http://www.genode.org/documentation/release-notes/10.02#Real-time_priorities - real-time priorities]
|
|
in version 10.02, we were seeking a way to express CPU affinities such that
|
|
Genode's recursive nature gets preserved and facilitated. Dealing with
|
|
physical CPU numbers would contradict with this mission. Our solution
|
|
is based on the observation that most MP systems have topologies that can
|
|
be represented on a two-dimensional coordinate system. CPU nodes close
|
|
to each other are expected to have closer relationship than distant nodes.
|
|
In a large-scale MP system, it is natural to assign clusters of closely
|
|
related nodes to a given workload. Genode's architecture is based on the
|
|
idea to recursively virtualize resources and thereby lends itself to the
|
|
idea to apply this successive virtualization to the problem of clustering
|
|
CPU nodes.
|
|
|
|
In our solution, each process has a process-local view on a so-called affinity
|
|
space, which is a two-dimensional coordinate space. If the process creates a
|
|
new subsystem, it can assign a portion of its own affinity space to the new
|
|
subsystem by imposing a rectangular affinity location to the subsystem's CPU
|
|
session. Figure [affinity_space] illustrates the idea.
|
|
|
|
[image affinity_space]
|
|
|
|
Following from the expression of affinities as a rectangular location within a
|
|
process-local affinity space, the assignment of subsystems to CPU nodes
|
|
consists of two parts, the definition of the affinity space dimensions as used
|
|
for the process and the association of sub systems with affinity locations
|
|
(relative to the affinity space). For the init process, the affinity space is
|
|
configured as a sub node of the config node. For example, the following
|
|
declaration describes an affinity space of 4x2:
|
|
|
|
! <config>
|
|
! ...
|
|
! <affinity-space width="4" height="2" />
|
|
! ...
|
|
! </config>
|
|
|
|
Subsystems can be constrained to parts of the affinity space using the
|
|
'<affinity>' sub node of a '<start>' entry:
|
|
|
|
! <config>
|
|
! ...
|
|
! <start name="loader">
|
|
! <affinity xpos="0" ypos="1" width="2" height="1" />
|
|
! ...
|
|
! </start>
|
|
! ...
|
|
! </config>
|
|
|
|
As illustrated by this example, the numbers used in the declarations for this
|
|
instance of the init process are not directly related to physical CPUs. If
|
|
the machine has just two cores, init's affinity space would be mapped
|
|
to the range [0,1] of physical CPUs. However, in a machine
|
|
with 16x16 CPUs, the loader would obtain 8x8 CPUs with the upper-left
|
|
CPU at position (4,0). Once a CPU session got created, the CPU client can
|
|
request the physical affinity space that was assigned to the CPU session
|
|
via the 'Cpu_session::affinity()' function. Threads of this CPU session
|
|
can be assigned to those physical CPUs via the 'Cpu_session::affinity()'
|
|
function, specifying a location relative to the CPU-session's affinity space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adding multi-processor support to Genode on NOVA
|
|
================================================
|
|
|
|
The NOVA kernel has been supporting MP systems for a long time. However
|
|
Genode did not leverage this capability until now. The main reason was that
|
|
the kernel does not provide - intentionally by the kernel developer - the
|
|
possibility to perform synchronous IPC between threads residing on different
|
|
CPUs.
|
|
|
|
To cope with this situation, Genode servers and clients would need to make
|
|
sure to have at least one thread on a common CPU in order to communicate.
|
|
Additionally, shared memory and semaphores could be used to communicate across
|
|
CPU cores. Both options would require rather fundamental changes to the Genode
|
|
base framework and the API. An exploration of this direction should in any
|
|
case be pursued in evolutionary steps rather than as one big change, also
|
|
taking into account that other kernels do not impose such hard requirements on
|
|
inter-CPU communication. To tackle the challenge, we conducted a series of
|
|
experiments to add some kind of cross-CPU IPC support to Genode/NOVA.
|
|
|
|
As a general implication of the missing inter-CPU IPC, messages between
|
|
communication partners that use disjoint CPUs must take an indirection through
|
|
a proxy process that has threads running on both CPUs involved. The sender
|
|
would send the message to a proxy thread on its local CPU, the proxy process
|
|
would transfer the message locally to the CPU of the receiver by using
|
|
process-local communication, and the proxy thread on the receiving CPU would
|
|
deliver the message to the actual destination. We came up with three options
|
|
to implement this idea prototypically:
|
|
|
|
# Core plays the role of the proxy because it naturally has access to all
|
|
CPUs and emulates cross-CPU IPC using the thread abstractions of the
|
|
Genode API.
|
|
# Core plays the role of the proxy but uses NOVA system calls directly
|
|
rather than Genode's thread abstraction.
|
|
# The NOVA kernel acts as the proxy and emulates cross-CPU IPC directly
|
|
in the kernel.
|
|
|
|
After having implemented the first prototypes, we reached the following
|
|
conclusions.
|
|
|
|
For options 1 and 2 where core provides this service: If a client can not
|
|
issue a local CPU IPC, it asks core - actually the pager of the client
|
|
thread - to perform the IPC request. Core then spawns or reuses a proxy thread
|
|
on the target CPU and performs the actual IPC on behalf of the client. Option
|
|
1 and 2 only differ in respect to code size and the question to whom to
|
|
account the required resources - since a proxy thread needs a stack and some
|
|
capability selectors.
|
|
|
|
As one big issue for option 1 and 2, we found that in order to delegate
|
|
capabilities during the cross-CPU IPC, core has to receive capability mappings
|
|
to delegate them to the target thread. However, core has no means to know
|
|
whether the capabilities must be maintained in core or not. If a capability is
|
|
already present in the target process, the kernel would just translate the
|
|
capability to the target's capability name space. So core wouldn't need to
|
|
keep it. In the other case where the target receives a prior unknown
|
|
capability, the kernel creates a new mapping. Because the mapping gets
|
|
established by the proxy in core, core must not free the capability.
|
|
Otherwise, the mapping would disappear in the target process. This means that
|
|
the use of core as a proxy ultimately leads to leaking kernel resources
|
|
because core needs to keep all transferred capabilities, just for the case a
|
|
new mapping got established.
|
|
|
|
For option 3, the same general functionality as for option 1 and 2 is
|
|
implemented in the kernel instead of core. If a local CPU IPC call
|
|
fails because of a BAD_CPU kernel error code, the cross-CPU IPC extension
|
|
will be used. The kernel extension creates - similar as to option 1 and 2 - a
|
|
semaphore (SM), a thread (EC), and a scheduling context (SC) on the remote
|
|
CPU and lets it run on behalf of the caller thread. The caller thread
|
|
gets suspended by blocking on the created semaphore until the remote EC has
|
|
finished the IPC. The remote proxy EC reuses the UTCB of the suspended caller
|
|
thread as is and issues the IPC call. When the proxy EC returns, it wakes up
|
|
the caller via the semaphore. Finally, the proxy EC and SC de-schedule
|
|
themselves and the resources get to be destroyed later on by the kernel's RCU
|
|
mechanism. Finally, when the caller thread got woken up, it takes care to
|
|
initiate the deconstruction of the semaphore.
|
|
|
|
The main advantage of option 3 compared to options 1 and 2 is that we don't
|
|
have to keep and track the capability delegations during a cross-CPU IPC.
|
|
Furthermore, we do not have potentially up to two additional address space
|
|
switches per cross-CPU IPC (from client to core and core to the server).
|
|
Additionally, the UTCB of the caller is reused by the proxy EC and does not
|
|
need to be allocated separately as for option 1 and 2.
|
|
|
|
For these reasons, we decided to go for the third option. From Genode's API
|
|
point of view, the use of cross-CPU IPC is completely transparent. Combined
|
|
with the affinity management described in the previous section, Genode/NOVA
|
|
just works on MP systems.
|
|
As a simple example for using Genode on MP systems, there is a ready-to-use
|
|
run script available at base/run/affinity.run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base framework
|
|
##############
|
|
|
|
Affinity propagation in parent, root, and RPC entrypoint interfaces
|
|
===================================================================
|
|
|
|
To support the propagation of CPU affinities with session requests, the
|
|
parent and root interfaces had to be changed. The 'Parent::Session'
|
|
and 'Root::Session' take the affinity of the session as a new argument.
|
|
The affinity argument contains both the dimensions of the affinity space
|
|
used by the session and the session's designated affinity location within
|
|
the space. The corresponding type definitions can be found at
|
|
base/affinity.h.
|
|
|
|
Normally, the 'Parent::Session' function is not used directly but indirectly
|
|
through the construction of a so-called connection object, which represents an
|
|
open session. For each session type there is a corresponding connection type,
|
|
which takes care of assembling the session-argument string by using the
|
|
'Connection::session()' convenience function. To maintain API compatibility,
|
|
we kept the signature of the existing 'Connection::session()' function using a
|
|
default affinity and added a new overload that takes the affinity as
|
|
additional argument. Currently, this overload is used in
|
|
cpu_session/connection.h.
|
|
|
|
For expressing the affinities of RPC entrypoints to CPUs within the affinity
|
|
space of the server process, the 'Rpc_entrypoint' takes the desired affinity
|
|
location of the entrypoint as additional argument. For upholding API
|
|
compatibility, the affinity argument is optional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CPU session interface
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
The CPU session interface underwent changes to accommodate the new event
|
|
tracing infrastructure and the CPU affinity management.
|
|
|
|
Originally the 'Cpu_session::num_cpus()' function could be used to
|
|
determine the number of CPUs available to the session. This function
|
|
has been replaced by the new 'affinity_space' function, which returns the
|
|
bounds of the CPU session's physical affinity space. In the simplest case of
|
|
an SMP machine, the affinity space is one-dimensional where the width
|
|
corresponds to the number of CPUs. The 'affinity' function, which is used to
|
|
bind a thread to a specified CPU, has been changed to take an affinity
|
|
location as argument. This way, the caller can principally express the
|
|
affiliation of the thread with multiple CPUs to guide load-balancing in a CPU
|
|
service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
New TRACE session interface
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
The new event tracing mechanism as described in Section
|
|
[Light-weight event tracing] is exposed to Genode processes in the form
|
|
of the TRACE service provided by core. The new session interface
|
|
is located under base/include/trace_session/. In addition to the new session
|
|
interface, the CPU session interface has been extended with functions for
|
|
obtaining the trace-control dataspace for the session as well as the trace
|
|
buffer and trace policy for a given thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low-level OS infrastructure
|
|
###########################
|
|
|
|
Event-driven operation of NIC bridge
|
|
====================================
|
|
|
|
The NIC bridge component multiplexes one physical network device among
|
|
multiple clients. It enables us to multiplex networking on the network-packet
|
|
level rather than the socket level and thereby take TCP/IP out of the
|
|
critical software stack for isolating network applications. As it
|
|
represents an indirection in the flow of all networking packets, its
|
|
performance is important.
|
|
|
|
The original version of NIC bridge was heavily multi-threaded. In addition to
|
|
the main thread, a timer thread, and a thread for interacting with the NIC
|
|
driver, it employed one dedicated thread per client. By merging those flows of
|
|
control into a single thread, we were able to significantly reduce the number
|
|
of context switches and improve data locality. These changes reduced the
|
|
impact of the NIC bridge on the packet throughput from 25% to 10%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improved POSIX thread support
|
|
=============================
|
|
|
|
To accommodate qtwebkit, we had to extend Genode's pthread library with
|
|
working implementations of condition variables, mutexes, and thread-local
|
|
storage. The implemented functions are attr_init, attr_destroy, attr_getstack,
|
|
attr_get_np, equal, mutex_attr, mutexattr_init, mutexattr_destroy,
|
|
mutexattr_settype, mutex_init, mutex_destroy, mutex_lock, mutex_unlock,
|
|
cond_init, cond_timedwait, cond_wait, cond_signal, cond_broadcast, key_create,
|
|
setspecific, and getspecific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Device drivers
|
|
##############
|
|
|
|
SATA 3.0 on Exynos 5
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
The previous release featured the initial version of our SATA 3.0 driver for
|
|
the Exynos 5 platform. This driver located at os/src/drivers/ahci/exynos5 has
|
|
reached a fully functional state by now. It supports UDMA-133 with up to
|
|
6 GBit/s.
|
|
|
|
For driver development, we set the goal to reach a performance equal to
|
|
the Linux kernel. To achieve that goal, we had to make sure to
|
|
operate the controller and the disks in the same ways as Linux does.
|
|
For this reason, we modeled our driver closely after the behaviour of the
|
|
Linux driver. That is, we gathered traces of I/O transactions to determine the
|
|
initialization steps and the request patterns that Linux performs to access
|
|
the device, and used those behavioral traces as a guide for our
|
|
implementation. Through step-by-step analysis of the traces, we not only
|
|
succeeded to operate the device in the proper modes, but we also found
|
|
opportunities for further optimization, in particular regarding the error
|
|
recovery implementation.
|
|
|
|
This approach turned out to be successful. We measured that our driver
|
|
generally operates as fast (and in some cases even significantly faster)
|
|
than the Linux driver on solid-state disks as well as on hard disks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic CPU frequency scaling for Exynos 5
|
|
==========================================
|
|
|
|
As the Samsung Exynos-5 SoC is primarily targeted at mobile platforms,
|
|
power management is an inherent concern. Until now, Genode did not pay
|
|
much attention to power management though. For example, we completely
|
|
left out the topic from the scope of the OMAP4 support. With the current
|
|
release, we took the first steps towards proper power management on ARM-based
|
|
platforms in general, and the Exynos-5-based Arndale platform in particular.
|
|
|
|
First, we introduced a general interface to regulate clocks and voltages.
|
|
Priorly, each driver did its own part of configuring clock and power control
|
|
registers. The more device drivers were developed, the higher were the chances
|
|
that they interfere when accessing those clock, or power units.
|
|
The newly introduced "Regulator" interface provides the possibility to enable
|
|
or disable, and to set or get the level of a regulator. A regulator might be
|
|
a clock for a specific device (such as a CPU) or a voltage regulator.
|
|
For the Arndale board, an exemplary implementation of the regulator interface
|
|
exists in the form of the platform driver. It can be found at
|
|
os/src/drivers/platform/arndale. Currently, the driver implements
|
|
clock regulators for the CPU, the USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 host controller, the
|
|
eMMC controller, and the SATA controller. Moreover, it provides power
|
|
regulators for SATA, USB 2.0, and USB 3.0 host controllers. The selection of
|
|
regulators is dependent on the availability of drivers for the platform.
|
|
Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to test that clock and power state doesn't
|
|
affect the device.
|
|
|
|
Apart from providing regulators needed by certain device drivers, we
|
|
implemented a clock regulator for the CPU that allows changing the CPU
|
|
frequency dynamically and thereby giving the opportunity to scale down
|
|
voltage and power consumption. The possible values range from 200 MHz to
|
|
1.7 GHz whereby the last value isn't recommended and might provoke system
|
|
crashes due to overheating. When using Genode's platform driver for Arndale
|
|
it sets CPU clock speed to 1.6 GHz by default. When reducing
|
|
the clock speed to the lowest level, we observed a power consumption
|
|
reduction of approximately 3 Watt. Besides reducing dynamic power consumption
|
|
by regulating the CPU clock frequency, we also explored the gating of the clock
|
|
management and power management to further reduce power consumption.
|
|
|
|
With the CPU frequency scaling in place, we started to close all clock gates
|
|
not currently in use. When the platform driver for the Arndale board gets
|
|
initialized, it closes everything. If a device driver enables its clock
|
|
regulator, all necessary clock gates for the device's clock are opened. This
|
|
action saves about 0.7 Watt. The initial closing of all unnecessary power
|
|
gates was much more effective. Again, everything not essential for the working
|
|
of the kernel is disabled on startup. When a driver enables its power
|
|
regulator, all necessary power gates for the device are opened. Closing all
|
|
power gates saves about 2.6 Watt.
|
|
|
|
If we consider all measures taken to save power, we were able to reduce power
|
|
consumption to about 59% without performance degradation. When measuring power
|
|
consumption after boot up, setting the CPU clock to 1.6 GHz, and fully load
|
|
both CPU cores without the described changes, we measured about 8 Watt. With
|
|
the described power saving provisions enabled, we measured about 4.7 Watt.
|
|
When further reducing the CPU clock frequency to 200 MHz, only 1.7 Watt were
|
|
measured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VESA driver moved to libports
|
|
=============================
|
|
|
|
The VESA framebuffer driver executes the initialization code located
|
|
in VESA BIOS of the graphics card. As the BIOS code is for real mode,
|
|
the driver uses the x86emu library from X11 as emulation environment.
|
|
We updated x86emu to version 1.20 and moved the driver from the 'os'
|
|
repository to the 'libports' repository as the library is third-party
|
|
code. Therefore, if you want to use the driver, the 'libports'
|
|
repository has to be prepared
|
|
('make -C <genode-dir>/libports prepare PKG=x86emu') and enabled in
|
|
your 'etc/build.conf'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Runtime environments
|
|
####################
|
|
|
|
Seoul (aka Vancouver) VMM on NOVA
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
Since we repeatedly received requests for using the Seoul respectively
|
|
Vancouver VMM on NOVA, we improved the support for this virtualization
|
|
solution on Genode. Seoul now supports booting from raw hard disk images
|
|
provided via Genode's block session interface. Whether this image is actually
|
|
a file located in memory, or it is coming directly from the hard disk, or just
|
|
from a partition of the hard disk using Genode's part_blk service, is
|
|
completely transparent thanks to Genode's architecture.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, we split up the one large Vancouver run script into several
|
|
smaller Seoul run scripts for easier usage - e.g. one for disk, one for
|
|
network testing, one for automated testing, and one we call "fancy". The
|
|
latter resembles the former vancouver.run script using Genode's GUI to let the
|
|
user start VMs interactively. The run scripts prefixed with 'seoul-' can be
|
|
found at ports/run. For the fancy and network scripts, ready-to-use VM images
|
|
are provided. Those images are downloaded automatically when executing the run
|
|
script for the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
L4Linux on Fiasco.OC
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
L4Linux has been updated from version 3.5.0 to Linux kernel version 3.9.0 thus
|
|
providing support for contemporary user lands running on top of L4Linux on both
|
|
x86 (32bit) and ARM platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noux runtime for Unix software
|
|
==============================
|
|
|
|
Noux is our way to use the GNU software stack natively on Genode. To improve
|
|
its performance, we revisited the address-space management of the runtime to
|
|
avoid redundant revocations of memory mappings when Noux processes are cleaned
|
|
up.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, we complemented the support for the Genode tool chain to
|
|
cover GNU sed and GNU grep as well. Both packages are available at the ports
|
|
repository.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Platforms
|
|
#########
|
|
|
|
Fiasco.OC updated to revision r56
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
Fiasco.OC and the required L4RE parts have been updated to the current SVN
|
|
revision (r56). For us, the major new feature is the support of Exynos SOCs in
|
|
the mainline version of Fiasco.OC (www.tudos.org). Therefore Genode's
|
|
implementation of the Exynos5250 platform could be abandoned leading to less
|
|
maintenance overhead of Genode on Fiasco.OC.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, Genode's multi-processor support for this kernel has been
|
|
improved so that Fiasco.OC users benefit from the additions described in
|
|
Section [Enhanced multi-processor support].
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOVA updated
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
In the process of our work on the multi-processor support on NOVA, we updated
|
|
the kernel to the current upstream version. Additionally, our customized branch
|
|
(called r3) comes with the added cross-CPU IPC system call and improvements
|
|
regarding the release of kernel resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integrity checks for downloaded 3rd-party software
|
|
##################################################
|
|
|
|
Even though Genode supports a large variety of 3rd-party software, its
|
|
source-code repository contains hardly any 3rd-party source code. Whenever
|
|
3rd-party source code is needed, Genode provides automated tools for
|
|
downloading the code and integrating it with the Genode environment. As of
|
|
now, there exists support for circa 70 software packages, including the
|
|
tool chain, various kernels, libraries, drivers, and a few applications. Of
|
|
those packages, the code for 13 packages comes directly from their respective
|
|
Git repositories. The remaining 57 packages are downloaded in the form of tar
|
|
archives from public servers via HTTP or FTP. Whereas we are confident with
|
|
the integrity of the code that comes from Git repositories, we are less so
|
|
about the archives downloaded from HTTP or FTP servers.
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, most Open-Source projects provide signature files that allow
|
|
the user to verify the origin of the archive. For example, archives of
|
|
GNU software are signed with the private key of the GNU project. So the
|
|
integrity of the archive can be tested with the corresponding public key.
|
|
We used to ignore the signature files for many years but
|
|
this has changed now. If there is a signature file available for a package,
|
|
the package gets verified right after downloading. If only a hash-sum file
|
|
is provided, we check it against a known-good hash sum.
|
|
|
|
The solution required three steps, the creation of tools for validating
|
|
signatures and hashes, the integration of those tools into Genode's
|
|
infrastructure for downloading the 3rd-party code, and the definition of
|
|
verification rules for the individual packages.
|
|
|
|
First, new tools for downloading and validating hash sums and signatures were
|
|
added in the form of the shell scripts download_hashver (verify hash sum) and
|
|
download_sigver (verify signature) found at the tool/ directory. Under the
|
|
hood, download_sigver uses GNU GPG, and download_hashver uses the tools
|
|
md5sum, sha1sum, and sha256sum provided by coreutils.
|
|
|
|
Second, hooks for invoking the verification tools were added to the
|
|
tool-chain build script as well as the ports and the libports repositories.
|
|
|
|
The third and the most elaborative step, was going through all the packages,
|
|
looking for publicly available signature files, and adding corresponding
|
|
package rules. As of now, this manual process has been carried out for 30
|
|
packages, thereby covering the half of the archives.
|
|
|
|
Thanks to Stephan Mueller for pushing us into the right direction, kicking off
|
|
the work on this valuable feature, and for the manual labour of revisiting all
|
|
the 3rd-party packages!
|
|
|