From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-01-13 22:26:27
|
----- Forwarded message from Matt Zimmerman <md...@de...> ----- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:25:14 -0500 From: Matt Zimmerman <md...@de...> To: Michael Vogt <eg...@to...>, 12...@bu... Cc: uml...@li... Subject: Re: Bug#128506: user-mode-linux: "linux ubd0=/some/path/emdebian/rootfs/" does not work On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:49:55PM +0100, Michael Vogt wrote: > Package: user-mode-linux > Version: 2.4.17.4um-1 > Severity: wishlist > > > Booting into a directory does not work with the debian UML package, but it > works with the deb-package provided from > http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/dl-sf.html > (like: "linux ubd0=/some/path/emdebian/rootfs/") > > Maybe the hostfs option is not set? For this to work, I believe hostfs must be statically linked into UML (unless there is some way to use an initrd type mechanism). I build the user-mode-linux package using the default kernel configuration, which builds hostfs as a loadable module. A copy of the kernel config is in /usr/share/doc/user-mode-linux/config.gz: CONFIG_HOSTFS=m You can build a UML package with a different configuration by following the instructions in /usr/share/doc/user-mode-linux/README.Debian. uml-devel folks: is there a recommended configuration that I should use for the Debian packages, other than the default? Specifically, should hostfs be compiled in? Jeff: things have been going swimmingly with the official Debian packages for UML. Do you want to continue distributing separate Debian packages, or use the official ones? -- - mdz ----- End forwarded message ----- -- - mdz |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-01-13 22:54:15
|
md...@de... said: > uml-devel folks: is there a recommended configuration that I should > use for the Debian packages, other than the default? Specifically, > should hostfs be compiled in? You're the packager. That's your job to decide :-) > Jeff: things have been going swimmingly with the official Debian > packages for UML. Do you want to continue distributing separate > Debian packages, or use the official ones? I'm perfectly happy to point people off to whatever you've built. Just give me an URL... Jeff |
From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-01-14 00:55:02
|
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 05:55:35PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > md...@de... said: > > uml-devel folks: is there a recommended configuration that I should use > > for the Debian packages, other than the default? Specifically, should > > hostfs be compiled in? > > You're the packager. That's your job to decide :-) I'd like to use modules where possible, but in this case, I think that the ubd=/path bit is too useful to be unuseable with the default configuration. I'll make an Executive Decision to compile in hostfs then. This also opens the door to making the loadable modules available automatically via hostfs, which would be very nice. > > Jeff: things have been going swimmingly with the official Debian > > packages for UML. Do you want to continue distributing separate > > Debian packages, or use the official ones? > > I'm perfectly happy to point people off to whatever you've built. Just give > me an URL... The official packages can always be found at: http://packages.debian.org/user-mode-linux http://packages.debian.org/uml-utilities http://packages.debian.org/kernel-patch-uml Though for users running unstable, a more common approach would be: apt-get install user-mode-linux Since your .debs appear to be built for potato, I'll start making unofficial builds for potato and putting them up somewhere APT-able, and you can link to those. -- - mdz |
From: Adam H. <ad...@do...> - 2002-01-14 02:27:06
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 05:55:35PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > > > md...@de... said: > > > uml-devel folks: is there a recommended configuration that I should use > > > for the Debian packages, other than the default? Specifically, should > > > hostfs be compiled in? > > > > You're the packager. That's your job to decide :-) > > I'd like to use modules where possible, but in this case, I think that the > ubd=/path bit is too useful to be unuseable with the default configuration. > I'll make an Executive Decision to compile in hostfs then. > > This also opens the door to making the loadable modules available > automatically via hostfs, which would be very nice. You could be even trickier, using some bind mounts. |
From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-01-14 09:29:44
|
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 08:25:34PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > I'd like to use modules where possible, but in this case, I think that > > the ubd=/path bit is too useful to be unuseable with the default > > configuration. I'll make an Executive Decision to compile in hostfs > > then. > > > > This also opens the door to making the loadable modules available > > automatically via hostfs, which would be very nice. > > You could be even trickier, using some bind mounts. What are you proposing? My idea was to provide an unpacked modules tree in the host filesystem, allowing the user to do something like: mount -t hostfs -o /usr/lib/uml/modules/$kernelversion none \ /lib/modules/$kernelversion Even better would be if there were a way to have this happen automatically, with the kernel version determined at runtime, so that the same images could be used with multiple versions of UML without any modification, and still have access to the modules. -- - mdz |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-01-14 19:12:49
|
md...@de... said: > What are you proposing? My idea was to provide an unpacked modules > tree in the host filesystem, allowing the user to do something like: > mount -t hostfs -o /usr/lib/uml/modules/$kernelversion none \ /lib/ > modules/$kernelversion You'd need to unpack the modules as a directory tree in this case. Alternatively, you could unpack them as an ext2 (or ext3 or resierfs or ...) filesystem image and mount it as a normal blcok device. > Even better would be if there were a way to have this happen > automatically, with the kernel version determined at runtime, so that > the same images could be used with multiple versions of UML without > any modification, and still have access to the modules. That could be done by adding the appropriate entry to the fstab in the filesystems available from the UML site. Jeff |
From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-01-14 21:29:53
|
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 02:14:32PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > md...@de... said: > > What are you proposing? My idea was to provide an unpacked modules tree > > in the host filesystem, allowing the user to do something like: mount -t > > hostfs -o /usr/lib/uml/modules/$kernelversion none \ /lib/ > > modules/$kernelversion > > You'd need to unpack the modules as a directory tree in this case. > Alternatively, you could unpack them as an ext2 (or ext3 or resierfs or > ...) filesystem image and mount it as a normal blcok device. Would we gain anything by using a filesystem image? I suppose it would make the files modifiable via COW, but I don't know how useful that is. > > Even better would be if there were a way to have this happen > > automatically, with the kernel version determined at runtime, so that > > the same images could be used with multiple versions of UML without > > any modification, and still have access to the modules. > > That could be done by adding the appropriate entry to the fstab in the > filesystems available from the UML site. But this would still have to be updated with each new UML kernel, and also in folks' private images, unless we mount over all of /lib/modules. I can imagine some good reasons for having other subdirectories under there, so that doesn't seem like a good idea. -- - mdz |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-01-14 23:04:55
|
md...@de... said: > Would we gain anything by using a filesystem image? I suppose it > would make the files modifiable via COW, but I don't know how useful > that is. I don't know. Just pointing it out as another possibility. > But this would still have to be updated with each new UML kernel, and > also in folks' private images, unless we mount over all of /lib/ > modules. Yeah, good point. Another possibility - have a generic line in fstab that mounts them someplace like /lib/modules/current and have an rc script make a symlink to there from /lib/modules/`uname -whatever`. Jeff |
From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-01-14 23:49:39
|
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:06:42PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > md...@de... said: > > But this would still have to be updated with each new UML kernel, and > > also in folks' private images, unless we mount over all of /lib/ > > modules. > > Yeah, good point. Another possibility - have a generic line in fstab that > mounts them someplace like /lib/modules/current and have an rc script make > a symlink to there from /lib/modules/`uname -whatever`. That's a promising idea. We could mount /usr/lib/uml on the host as /usr/lib/uml inside UML, and just set up a symlink from, /lib/modules/<version> to, say, /usr/lib/uml/modules/<version>. Having /usr/lib/uml available as a standard would provide a place for other things that one might want to share with the UML systems, also. It might be nice to have a standard UML "overlay" that could be untarred over an image to make things like this work, containing a few init scripts and the like. Maybe even an RPM or deb for installing them on RPMish and Debianish root images. I use a simple one for Debian potato which creates the UBD block devices and an appropriate fstab for booting as ubd0 under UML. -- - mdz |
From: Adam H. <ad...@do...> - 2002-01-15 05:12:19
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > What are you proposing? My idea was to provide an unpacked modules tree in > the host filesystem, allowing the user to do something like: > > mount -t hostfs -o /usr/lib/uml/modules/$kernelversion none \ > /lib/modules/$kernelversion The linux router project uses compressed tarballs, passed to the kernel at boot time, to provide functionallity. Maybe using that patch would be helpful. |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-01-14 04:29:41
|
md...@de... said: > I'd like to use modules where possible, but in this case, I think that > the ubd=/path bit is too useful to be unuseable with the default > configuration. I'll make an Executive Decision to compile in hostfs > then. Yup, that's pretty much what I thought. root hostfs was advertised on the site, so I figured I'd better make it work out of the box. > The official packages can always be found at: > Though for users running unstable, a more common approach would be: > apt-get install user-mode-linux Starting with 2.4.18, I'll change the downloads page accordingly. > Since your .debs appear to be built for potato, I'll start making > unofficial builds for potato and putting them up somewhere APT-able, > and you can link to those. OK, cool. Jeff |
From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-01-14 07:51:03
|
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:30:56PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > md...@de... said: > > The official packages can always be found at: > > Though for users running unstable, a more common approach would be: > > apt-get install user-mode-linux > > Starting with 2.4.18, I'll change the downloads page accordingly. > > Since your .debs appear to be built for potato, I'll start making > > unofficial builds for potato and putting them up somewhere APT-able, > > and you can link to those. > > OK, cool. The dependencies for kernel-patch-uml and user-mode-linux are satisfied in potato, so the packages from packages.debian.org should work for potato unmodified. I've built the current uml-utilities against potato libraries, and placed an (untested, but sanity-checked) i386 .deb at: http://people.debian.org/~mdz/uml/potato/uml-utilities_20020104-1_i386.deb I will try to update this copy when significant updates are made to the utilities. Hopefully, woody will be released soon, and all of this will become irrelevant. -- - mdz |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-03-02 02:18:54
|
md...@de... said: > Though for users running unstable, a more common approach would be: > apt-get install user-mode-linux Since 2.4.18 is finally here, I've stopped distributing my broken debs and have started pushing yours. Can you have a look at http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/dl-sf.html and let me know if there's anything I should add? Jeff |
From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2002-03-02 07:18:46
|
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:21:20PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > md...@de... said: > > Though for users running unstable, a more common approach would be: > > apt-get install user-mode-linux > > Since 2.4.18 is finally here, I've stopped distributing my broken debs and > have started pushing yours. Can you have a look at > > http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/dl-sf.html > > and let me know if there's anything I should add? Looks good to me. Unfortunately, I don't have 2.4.18 debs yet, since there is as yet no packaged 2.4.18 kernel source. I have added the 2.4.18 patch to the latest kernel-patch-uml though, and I will build them as soon as the source appears in Debian. -- - mdz |