Designing a new init: low level communication
a-aa
a-aa at hollowtube.mine.nu
Mon Aug 29 11:40:25 UTC 2005
Erich Schubert wrote:
>Hi,
>Although I havn't gotten much (if any concrete) feedback on the
>preferred way (or what you could imagine to be useful) of configuring
>the init - here's my next question.
>
>Maybe even more theoretical:
>Again, assuming we're goging to end up writing a totally new init.
>I guess most will agree that it would be nice to have a very small
>core, and attach helpers to it "somehow", that do additional jobs.
>This can be plugins, and one example is telinit.
>We need to provide some means of communication for this case.
>Since we want a more complex init, one-way communication will probably
>not be sufficient.
>
>I havn't fully investigated all options, and maybe I'm missing some.
>More likely, I'll be missing some problem with them...
>
>1. fifos.
>The traditional approach is the /dev/initctl FIFO used by sysvinit.
>This is a one-way link, and apps can lock() it to prevent interference
>of write calls.
>Minit does use two fifos, one for input, one for output. The semantics
>is that you acquire a write lock on the "in" fifo (to init), then open
>the "out" fifo for reading if you need/expect a reply. Example queries
>are "give me the PID of service foo".
>
>I don't know about runit or initng. Can someone please elaborate?
>Afaict it has a plugin using sockets in /dev/initng (doesn't this
>require a writeable filesystem?) and a plugin for initctl support.
>
>Drawbacks:
>- fifos need to be created before boot, so we don't need a writeable filesystem.
>- only one client at a time
>
>2. unix domain sockets
>Drawbacks:
>- need writeable filesystem
>- portability issues with access control?
>Pro:
>- multiple connections possible
>
>
You can use /dev, which means it's accessable from very early in the
boot, initng does this and it works well. Also, are we sure this needs
a writable filesystem? I think if the socket exists it might not, I
can't really remember ;)
>3. abstract unix domain sockets
>(which have a filename starting with \0 and do not reside in the filesystem)
>Drawbacks:
>- portability issues (linux only?)
>Pro:
>- multiple connections possible
>- no writeable filesystem needed (verified?)
>
>4. shared memory and sysv semaphores, or sysv messages
>Drawbacks:
>- difficult semantics, signalling?
>Pro:
>- portable to BSD? (can anyone verify?)
>
>Well, doesn't look to nice what I've found so far...
>We could probably do a combined approach - use two fifos for the core
>operations, like minit does, and do extended stuff (e.g. monitoring,
>dbus connector) over unix domain sockets and abstract uds?
>
>Anyone with lots of experience at this level?
>Because I'd really like to have a minimal core init...
>
>
I have a bit of experience here, as initng has been trying out a few
here, fifo's were horrible and unix sockets worked very well, and we can
solve issues here either with initramfs on boot or by waiting until /dev
is mounted (which by initng is after the first script is launched).
How much do we want to support remotly though? Do we want a plugin api
or a comunication api? I imagine a comunication api would end up being
considerably more advanced and a lot harder to implement, but that could
be because I'm used to working with plugins ;)
>best regards,
>Erich Schubert
>--
> erich@(mucl.de|debian.org) -- GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C (o_
> To understand recursion you first need to understand recursion. //\
> Wo befreundete Wege zusammenlaufen, da sieht die ganze Welt für V_/_
> eine Stunde wie eine Heimat aus. --- Herrmann Hesse
>
>_______________________________________________
>initscripts-ng-devel mailing list
>initscripts-ng-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/initscripts-ng-devel
>
>
>
More information about the initscripts-ng-devel
mailing list