Driver Update Disk discussion
From: Scott Long (scottl_at_samsco.org)
Date: 02/25/05
- Previous message: Ashwin Chandra: "sched_4bsd.c Quantum change"
- Next in thread: M. Warner Losh: "Re: Driver Update Disk discussion"
- Reply: M. Warner Losh: "Re: Driver Update Disk discussion"
- Reply: Peter Jeremy: "Re: Driver Update Disk discussion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:59:19 -0700 To: hackers@freebsd.org
The good news is that more and more vendors are supporting FreeBSD
directly, many via paid staff to write and maintain drivers, testing
labs for QA, and tech support for end-customers. The bad news is that
FreeBSD puts up a number of roadblocks that makes their jobs very
difficult. While we do a lot to help them get their sources
into the tree, the real problem is that we make it very hard for them to
provide driver updates that are asynchronous from FreeBSD releases. It
is very common for a vendor to want to put out an updated driver with
fixed bugs or updated support for a prior release of the OS. The ideal
way to do this is by releasing a 'driver update disk' that contains
binary modules of the updated driver, along with scripts or instructions
for installing it into the system. This system has to be easy and
smooth; the vendors often times deal with customers who are not savvy
and are in need of an automated, fool-proof solution. It has to be able
to cleanly override any existing modules or in-kernel versions of the
modules, it has to be able to survive a system recompile, and it has to
work in an environment where the system might not be able to boot or
install without the updated module.
So, in no particular order, the problems that are present right now include:
- sysinstall support. Sysinstall has a minor menu for loading KLD's off
of a disk, but whatever gets loaded does not get transfered to the new
system at all. It's possible to break into a shell and copy and paste
the bits by hand, but that's a very poor situation. A framework needs
to be in place that lets sysinstall run pre- and post- install actions
on a driver disk, with the vendor able to supply custom scripts for
these actions. Support for the scripts interacting with the user should
also be available (for custom readme's, EULA's, etc).
Sysinstall should also be able to arbitrate between a vendor/user
supplied driver and the stock driver. The current point where
sysinstall allows a vendor disk is too late; the system is already up
and all the drivers in the kernel have already probed and attached.
This means that overriding an existing driver is impossible. Solving
this likely means that the sysinstall kernel is completely stripped
down, and all drivers exist as modules that get loaded after sysinstall
has started and given the user the option to load a vendor driver.
- runtime support. Where will modules be put, how will they be ensured
to not collide with the base system modules, and how will the system
ensure that they get loaded on every boot. Most of the pieces are in
place right now via the loader knowing about /boot/modules, and
/boot/loader.conf able to be modified to point to modules in there.
What is missing is a formal definition of how these pieces work, and
tools to automate and manage it for the user and vendor.
- kernel option support. How do we support vendor modules in a kernel
that might be compiled with PAE (rather common these days), SMP, MAC,
etc. The loader and /boot infrastructure has no concept of this. It's
highly important, though.
- source code support. A vendor might want to distribute source code
for the module that would be picked up in a kernel re-compile. Patching
the src/ tree is the only way to do that now, and that creates problems
when interacting with cvsup. Solving this would tie into the problem of
compiling drivers out of ports/. In fact, a vendor driver, both in
source and in binary form, should probably be treated as a port/package,
and I describe below.
- kernel api/abi. We are trying to keep the kernel api/abi stable now,
which helps a lot. However, there is a chance that these could change
for legitimate reasons. How do we protect binary-only modules from
this? Linux has a fairly draconian system of hashing all of the
exported kernel symbols with the kernel options and the kernel
major/minor/subminor versions, and making the linker reject modules that
don't have the right hash. Should we follow with something similar, or
should we have runtime checks that check symbol/structure signatures?
Or should we say that we make no guarantees about a binary-only module
working on anything but a -RELEASE kernel?
- management. How do ge let the user and vendor manage the updated
drivers? The vendor might put out a series of updates during the
lifecycle of a particular OS release, so we need to provide
infrastructure to make this work. The obvious candidate is the
ports/packages system, but does that really do all that we need. I need
to sit down and think about this a lot before I can say. It would also
need to tie in with sysinstall.
- kernel namespace. Devclass collisions seem to already be handled
gracefully. devfs collisions aren't, and maybe some seatbelts here
would be good. Linker symbol collisions are what I really worry about,
since they will prevent a vendor from installing an updated driver on
top of an existing driver with a overlapping set of non-static symbols.
I know that we do some sort of magic symbol hiding while compiling the
kernel, but does that apply to modules also?
These are the big things I can think of right now. Solving it is a big
task, but it's something that we need to do if we want vendor support to
continue and to grow. If anyone is interested in helping with the
design and engineering of this (this isn't a call for testers!), please
let me know.
Scott
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Ashwin Chandra: "sched_4bsd.c Quantum change"
- Next in thread: M. Warner Losh: "Re: Driver Update Disk discussion"
- Reply: M. Warner Losh: "Re: Driver Update Disk discussion"
- Reply: Peter Jeremy: "Re: Driver Update Disk discussion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
