Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:03:01 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, tychon@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LUA loader: bhyve now doesn't? Message-ID: <CACNAnaHDgXAP-gb7hwmk3z-GRTHz_mdKi3JQT4e3ucR0FP4ZiA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <167d1cb1-7232-52bb-9a73-6f109c437a63@FreeBSD.org> References: <20180819152253.bbcrefdvynl7y5ka@ler-imac.local> <CANCZdfqHV7Fy%2BbJAuMv5gfJmPJqh1QmKqjGz-bVH2wh6NyqeVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180819153526.7ruovrpmdsimkmfj@ler-imac.local> <CANCZdfr2h=e-4%2BD9JYR3TkKyaEywYkCnXmyGmVMq6-NpN=GX2w@mail.gmail.com> <CACNAnaGh%2BgpwcDE3TQKd9xCnJpD4GtE2Z0wwjagKMUNVhdHznw@mail.gmail.com> <167d1cb1-7232-52bb-9a73-6f109c437a63@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:58 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 8/19/18 5:28 PM, Kyle Evans wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Larry Rosenman <ler@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 09:33:18AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Larry Rosenman <ler@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> With today's change to LUA as the loader, I seem to have an issue with >>>>>> bhyhve: >>>>>> >>>>>> Consoles: userboot >>>>>> >>>>>> FreeBSD/amd64 User boot, Revision 1.1 >>>>>> (Thu Nov 16 15:04:02 CST 2017 root@borg.lerctr.org) >>>>>> Startup error in /boot/lua/loader.lua: >>>>>> LUA ERROR: cannot open /boot/lua/loader.lua: no such file or directory. >>>>>> >>>>>> /boot/kernel/kernel text=0x1063d88 data=0x12e930+0x283970 >>>>>> syms=[0x8+0x14cf28+0x8+0x163e57] >>>>>> Hit [Enter] to boot immediately, or any other key for command prompt. >>>>>> Booting [/boot/kernel/kernel]... >>>>>> >>>>>> These VM's have been running for MONTHS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideas? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's no boot/lua/loader.lua. >>>>> >>>>> You can either fix that, or you can recompile with >>>>> LOADER_DEFAULT_INTERP=4th for the moment. >>>> actually on the host there is: >>>> borg.lerctr.org /home/ler $ ls -l /boot/lua/ >>>> total 131 >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 3895 Aug 19 09:46 cli.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 3204 Aug 19 09:46 color.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 14024 Aug 19 09:46 config.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 10302 Aug 19 09:46 core.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 9986 Aug 19 09:46 drawer.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 3324 Aug 19 09:46 hook.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2543 Aug 19 09:46 loader.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2431 Aug 19 09:46 logo-beastie.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2203 Aug 19 09:46 logo-beastiebw.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 1958 Aug 19 09:46 logo-fbsdbw.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2399 Aug 19 09:46 logo-orb.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2119 Aug 19 09:46 logo-orbbw.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 12010 Aug 19 09:46 menu.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 3941 Aug 19 09:46 password.lua >>>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2381 Aug 19 09:46 screen.lua >>>> borg.lerctr.org /home/ler $ >>>> >>>> This is when booting the vm, and it's not on the vm's disk. >>>> >>>> So the bhyveload behavior *CHANGED*. >>>> >>>> POLA? >>>> >>> >>> Unlikely, but a couple of questions. Have you always used the LUA loader, >>> or is this a change with the recent default switch? >>> >>> And to be clear, you expect the host's file to be used for this, not the VM >>> filesystem? >>> >> >> (CC'ing jhb@ and tychon@, who might have better insight) >> >> If we can swing it, I think the best model here should have always >> been that userboot uses the host's scripts but the guest's >> loader.conf. The current model doesn't tolerate any mismatch between >> host and guest and looks unsustainable. > > Err, normally guests read things out of the a guest disk image (think most > VMs like VirtualBox, etc.). userboot.so is looking in the guest's disk image. > Now, userboot isn't memory limited like the BIOS boot, so if it's > possible to have userboot just include both lua and forth perhaps with > some auto-detection based on what is in /boot/loader.rc to determine > which interpreter to use, that is really the best path forward. > Right, but userboot is clearly a special monkey... it seems that it would have made a lot more sense to emulate an actual BIOS boot (or something) and boot a real boot1/loader from a guest, but instead we end up with this host dependency of userboot that's invoking scripts from the guest -- which may or may not match. I think including both loaders in userboot is probably a no-start based on the current interface.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaHDgXAP-gb7hwmk3z-GRTHz_mdKi3JQT4e3ucR0FP4ZiA>