unofficial mirror of bug-guix@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: 40998@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#40998: Guix System's initrd doesn't honor rootflags
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 16:45:40 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mtiasm0r.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fso2bsm2.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic Courtès"'s message of "Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:15:17 +0100")

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> There’s no need to have a ‘version’ field in live <boot-parameters>
>>> records: have the ‘version’ field in the serialized format (the sexp)
>>> and make sure the deserializer correctly converts to the internal
>>> representation.
>>>
>>> Here, I think you can bump the version number in the serialized form,
>>> and have ‘read-boot-parameters’ automatically augment ‘kernel-arguments’
>>> when VERSION is 0 with “--root=XYZ”.
>>
>> I initially went that route, as this was the idea you'd given me
>> initially.  However, 'read-boot-parameters' deals with serializing the
>> parameters file only; to add 'root', 'gnu.load' and 'gnu.system', the
>> operating-system object as well as the root device are needed.
>
> <boot-parameters> already has ‘root-device’, so that’s fine.
>
> But you’re right that the system itself is a problem because that’s
> self-referential—it’s the thing the “parameters” file is in.  Hmm!
>
> We could add a substitution mechanism where a literal “$SYSTEM” (say) in
> the ‘kernel-arguments’ of <boot-parameters> would be substituted by the
> actual system store file name by ‘read-boot-parameters’, but maybe
> that’s overkill.
>
> So long story short: keeping the ‘version’ field in <boot-parameters>
> sounds reasonable after all.  :-)

OK, good, thanks for having confirmed that.

>> The reason 'gnu.load' and 'gnu.system' aren't written to the
>> parameters file to start with is because they would cause the system
>> directory to no longer be content-addressable; this is explained in
>> the docstring of 'operating-system-boot-parameters-file':
>>
>>     When SYSTEM-KERNEL-ARGUMENTS? is true, add kernel arguments such as 'root'
>>     and 'gnu.load' to the returned file (since the returned file is then usually
>>     stored into the content-addressed "system" directory, it's usually not a
>>     good idea to give it because the content hash would change by the content hash
>>     being stored into the "parameters" file).
>
> This comment originates in 40fad1c24ce60076e26f6dc8096e4716d31d90c3.  I
> find it a bit misleading because nothing’s “content-addressed”, but I
> guess it refers to the same problem: that this is self-referential.
>
> (There’s only one use of #:system-kernel-arguments? #t.  We can remove
> that keyword parameter from ‘operating-system-boot-parameters-file’
> since it’s not used there.)

OK, I'll address this confusing comment and extraneous argument in a
separate commit.

>>> Also, you could write the ‘match’ pattern like this:
>>>
>>>   ('boot-parameters ('version (and version (or 0 1)))
>>>                     ('label label) …)
>>
>> I think this patch's current form is preferable, as it means future
>> boot-parameters version bumps won't break older Guices (when
>> reconfiguring), as long as the version is an exact, non-negative integer
>> (e.g. when going from 1 to 2).
>
> That’s what we want to avoid: bumping the version number means that the
> new format is not backwards-compatible, and that older Guix versions
> won’t be able to read it.  That’s why I think ‘read-boot-parameters’
> needs to be explicit about the version(s) it expects.  (A more complete
> example of this pattern is ‘sexp->manifest’.)
>
> Breaking backwards compatibility should be avoided when possible, but
> it’s not always possible.  In ‘read-boot-parameters’, ‘bootloader-name’,
> ‘bootloader-menu-entries’, ‘kernel’, etc. are handled somewhat weirdly
> to preserve backwards-compatibility; doing this allowed us to not bump
> the file format version.

Thanks for explaining!  I initially thought the choice to break backward
compatibility could be left to the implementer of a new version, but now
I see this wouldn't work or be brittle.

I've modified the first commit like so:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
modified   gnu/system.scm
@@ -365,8 +365,10 @@ (define uuid-sexp->uuid
        (warning (G_ "unrecognized uuid ~a at '~a'~%") x (port-filename port))
        #f)))
 
+  ;; New versions are not backward-compatible, so only accept past and current
+  ;; versions, not future ones.
   (define (version? n)
-    (and (exact-integer? n) (not (negative? n))))
+    (member n (iota (1+ %boot-parameters-version))))
 
   (match (read port)
     (('boot-parameters ('version (? version? version))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

So that there's only one thing to update when we'll bump the version
again in the future (%boot-parameters-version).

I'll be sending a v3 shortly, thanks again!

Maxim




      reply	other threads:[~2022-02-28 21:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-01 13:53 bug#40998: Guix System's initrd doesn't honor rootflags maxim.cournoyer
2022-02-18 15:33 ` bug#40998: [PATCH 1/3] initrd: Rename the '--root' initrd option to just 'root' Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-18 15:33   ` bug#40998: [PATCH 2/3] initrd: Honor rootfstype and rootflags command-line parameters Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-18 15:33   ` bug#40998: [PATCH 3/3] initrd: Print its " Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-19  7:01 ` bug#40998: [PATCH v2 1/4] system: Add a version field to the <boot-parameters> record Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-19  7:01   ` bug#40998: [PATCH v2 2/4] initrd: Use non-hyphenated kernel command-line parameter names Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-27 21:03     ` bug#40998: Guix System's initrd doesn't honor rootflags Ludovic Courtès
2022-02-28 20:31       ` Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-19  7:01   ` bug#40998: [PATCH v2 3/4] initrd: Honor rootfstype and rootflags command-line parameters Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-27 21:06     ` bug#40998: Guix System's initrd doesn't honor rootflags Ludovic Courtès
2022-02-19  7:01   ` bug#40998: [PATCH v2 4/4] initrd: Print its command-line parameters Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-27 21:08     ` bug#40998: Guix System's initrd doesn't honor rootflags Ludovic Courtès
2022-02-28 20:36       ` Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-28  3:45     ` bug#40998: [PATCH v2 4/4] initrd: Print its command-line parameters Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2022-02-28 15:54       ` Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-27 20:54   ` bug#40998: Guix System's initrd doesn't honor rootflags Ludovic Courtès
2022-02-28 20:02     ` Maxim Cournoyer
2022-02-28 21:15       ` Ludovic Courtès
2022-02-28 21:45         ` Maxim Cournoyer [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://guix.gnu.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87mtiasm0r.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com \
    --cc=40998@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=ludo@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).