[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VW ELF loader

From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Subject: Re: VW ELF loader
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 10:19:52 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0

On 04/02/2020 09:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il lun 3 feb 2020, 23:36 Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> ha scritto:
>     > What partition formats would have to be supported?
>     MBR, GPT, is there anything else? "Support" is limited to converting a
>     number after command to [start, size] couple. I am not going for file
>     systems.
>     > But honestly I'm
>     > more worried about the networking part.
>     Fair enough.
>     > Yes, SLOF is big and slow.  petitboot is not petit at all either, and
>     > has the disadvantage that you have to find a way to run GRUB
>     afterwards.
>     >  But would a similarly minimal OF implementation (no network,
>     almost no
>     > interpret so no Forth, device tree built entirely in the host, etc.)
>     > be just as big and slow?
>     I doubt. We will be getting rid of unnecessary drivers, bus scanning
>     code (SCSI, PCI), device tree synchronization.
> What I mean is, if you write a firmware that exposes a minimal OF device
> interface but runs it in the guest, and does a hypercall for everything
> else, would it be as big and slow as SLOF?

I just did almost that - 20 bytes, fast as a bullet, runs in the guest ;)

Speaking seriously, what would I put into the guest?

The device tree? This is the core problem of the current design - we
need to keep it in sync with QEMU.

Netboot's dhcp/tftp/ip/ipv6 client? It is going to be another SLOF,
smaller but adhoc with only a couple of people knowing it. Other
packages - disk-label, deblocker - I do not see any user for these
except SLOF itself.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]