←back to thread

364 points Klasiaster | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
justmarc ◴[] No.41853080[source]
I'm interested in these kind of kernels to run very high performance network/IO specific services on bare metal, with minimal system complexity/overheads and hopefully better (potential) stability and security.

The big concern I have however is hardware support, specifically networking hardware.

I think a very interesting approach would be to boot the machine with a FreeBSD or Linux kernel, just for the purposes of hardware as well as network support, and use a sort of Rust OS/abstraction layer for the rest, bypassing or simply not using the originally booted kernel for all user land specific stuff.

replies(4): >>41853111 #>>41853348 #>>41853724 #>>41855929 #
treeshateorcs ◴[] No.41853111[source]
i might be wrong but if it's ABI compatible the same drivers will work?

p.s.: i was wrong

>While we prioritize compatibility, it is important to note that Asterinas does not, nor will it in the future, support the loading of Linux kernel modules.

https://asterinas.github.io/book/kernel/linux-compatibility....

replies(4): >>41853156 #>>41853164 #>>41853386 #>>41856891 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.41853386[source]
Linux doesn't even maintain ABI compatibility with itself, nobody else is going to manage it. The possibility that might work is there's a couple projects that maintain just enough API compatibility to reuse driver code from Linux (IIRC FreeBSD does this for some graphics drivers). But even then you're gambling with whether Linux decides to change implementation details one day, since internal APIs explicitly aren't stable.
replies(1): >>41853663 #
bcrl ◴[] No.41853663[source]
The Linux kernel community takes ABI compatibility for userland very seriously. That developers in userland are frequently unwilling to understand issues surrounding ABI stability is not the fault of the Linux kernel.
replies(1): >>41853839 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.41853839[source]
Oh sure, the user-space ABI is stable; I meant kernel-space. Although I realize now that I failed to write that explicitly.
replies(1): >>41854385 #
bcrl ◴[] No.41854385[source]
The past 30 years of the Linux kernel's evolution has proven that there is no need for a stable kernel ABI. That would make refactoring, adding new features and porting to new platforms exceedingly difficult. Pretty much all of the proprietary kernel modules have either become open source or been replaced by open source replacements. The Linux community doesn't need closed source kernel modules for VMWare anymore, and even Nvidia has finally given up on their closed source GPU drivers. Proprietary Linux kernel modules have no place in the modern world.
replies(3): >>41854526 #>>41857421 #>>41857874 #
1. GoblinSlayer ◴[] No.41857421[source]
It depends on your goals, but at least Torvalds believes driver availability is important and unstable ABI is known to hinder driver availability.