diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'hurd/subhurd')
| -rw-r--r-- | hurd/subhurd/discussion.mdwn | 96 |
1 files changed, 93 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/hurd/subhurd/discussion.mdwn b/hurd/subhurd/discussion.mdwn index 3449edcd..c4fc047f 100644 --- a/hurd/subhurd/discussion.mdwn +++ b/hurd/subhurd/discussion.mdwn @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this @@ -8,9 +8,10 @@ Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] -[[!tag open_issue_documentation]] +[[!tag open_issue_documentation open_issue_hurd]] -IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-10 + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-10 < braunr> youpi: aren't sub-hurds actually called "neighbor hurds" ? < youpi> no idea @@ -67,3 +68,92 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-10 < antrik> I don't think that's actually supported in the boot program... but it doesn't really matter, as you don't really need the terminal anyways -- you can always log in through the network + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-31 + + <gg0> subhurd seems like bsd jail (tried none of them) + <antrik> gg0: nope. BSD jails are mostly chroot AIUI. subhurd is quite + different + <antrik> gg0: you actually boot a completely new system instance + <antrik> complete with all the Hurd servers, UNIX daemons etc. + <braunr> jails are between subhhurds and chroots :p + <braunr> i suppose there is nothing against making the root server of the + subhurd use a file instead of a raw disk, is there ? + <gg0> well, I said jails cos afaik are more isolated from real system than + chroots + <braunr> yes + <gg0> maybe comparing subhurd to virtual machines would be more + appropriated then + <braunr> they're not VMs either + <gg0> say chroot -> jail -> subhurd -> vm ? + <braunr> unless you consider the microkernel to be a hypervisor, with its + own architecture, which some actually do + <braunr> gg0: something like that, yes + <gg0> [system-in-system evolution] + <braunr> a subhurd is an operating system instance + <braunr> i think the closest analogy you can get is openvz + <antrik> yeah, I'd also consider it closest. but it's still quite + different: with OpenVZ, the kernel facilities are only logically + isolated; but they use the same kernel code. with subhurds, most of the + system facilities are independent + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-03 + + <antrik> hm... are Mach task IDs exposed to userspace? + <braunr> antrik: ids ? + <braunr> antrik: what do you call a mach task id ? + <antrik> task have numeric IDs in the kernel + <antrik> I wonder whether these are ever exposed to userspace + <braunr> i'm not sure + <braunr> i don't remember the had numeric IDs + <braunr> they* + <antrik> well, perhaps I'm making things up... but I believe I saw such IDs + in the debugger and/or in error messages + <braunr> probably their address + <braunr> or creation time orpc_sample + <antrik> braunr: well, any unique ID would do + <braunr> antrik: yes but i was wondering what kdb would actually show + <antrik> I just realised that it would be useful for debugging accross + subhurds or kernel/userspace if some kind of unique task IDs could be + shown in ps output + <braunr> yes + <braunr> this requires some thought though + <braunr> ps shouldn't show that + <braunr> there should be mach specific commands i suppose + <braunr> but then, gdb and other tools wouldn't have access to subhurd + tasks either + <antrik> why shouldn't ps show that? I don't think it's any more sensitive + information than all the other stuff ps shows... + <braunr> it doesn't feel right + <braunr> i would want my system instances to be truely isolated + <braunr> and use special "cross instance" facilities + <braunr> when necessary + <antrik> that's completely orthogonal to what I'm talking about + <braunr> like eth-multiplexer + <braunr> you seem to be talking about security + <braunr> or privacy + <antrik> we discussed such options when zhengda worked on rootless subhurd + <antrik> no, I'm talking about convenient debugging + <braunr> right + <braunr> i don't think it'zs orthogonal here + <braunr> if we increase separation, it becomes less convenient + <antrik> for debugging purposes you would *not* use the isolation options + <braunr> ok so you propose two modes of operations + <antrik> BTW, as an isolated subhurd relies on the parent, it makes no + sense to hide subhurd tasks from the parent hurd -- only hide parent hurd + task from the subhurd + <braunr> agreed + <antrik> so even with an isolated subhurd global task IDs would still be + useful + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-06 + + <braunr> antrik: if i'm right, the root file system executable is read from + the parent, right ? + <antrik> braunr: probably... I'm not sure about that part + <braunr> antrik: i've installed the same packages in both the main and + subhurds to be sure + <braunr> and to have the right binary and debugging symbols in gdb anyway |