Devel February 2016

devel@sel4.systems

10 participants
6 discussions

IA32 syscall bindings
by Norman Feske 26 Aug '16

26 Aug '16

Dear seL4 developers, first, I'd like to thank you for publishing seL4 under GPL. I am very happy that I can finally get my hands dirty with working with the kernel of your group. :-) Currently, I am taking the first baby steps to bring the Genode OS framework (http://genode.org) to seL4. For reference, I am using the experimental branch. The first smallish issue I stumbled upon stems from the fact that Genode is written in C++. By compiling the seL4 syscall bindings with a C++ compiler, I got the following error: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an ‘asm’ It can be reproduced by putting the following code snippet into a cc file and compiling it with 'g++ -m32 -c' (tested with the Genode tool chain as well as with GCC 4.8.1): typedef enum { seL4_SysDebugPutChar = -9, _enum_pad_seL4_Syscall_ID = (1U << ((sizeof(int)*8) - 1)) } seL4_Syscall_ID; void seL4_DebugPutChar(char c) { asm volatile ( "pushl %%ebp \n" "movl %%esp, %%ecx \n" "leal 1f, %%edx \n" "1: \n" "sysenter \n" "popl %%ebp \n" : : "a" (seL4_SysDebugPutChar), "b" (c) : "%ecx", "%edx", "%esi", "%edi", "memory" ); } When compiling the same code snippet with 'gcc' instead of 'g++', everything is fine. It turns out that the C++ compiler does not like the enum value to be specified as input argument. I found the following ways to circumvent this problem: * Changing the enum value 'SysDebugPutChar' to a positive value, * Removing the definition of '_enum_pad_seL4_Syscall_ID', * Casting 'seL4_SysDebugPutChar' to an integer: : "a" ((int)seL4_SysDebugPutChar), In any case, I seem to have to change the bindings. Do you see a way around it? If not, would you consider one of the solutions above for the seL4 headers? On another note, I noticed that the bindings use the EBX register. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to compile seL4 userland software as position-independent code (PIC). E.g., when compiling the above code snippet via 'g++ -m32 -fPIC -c', the following error occurs: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an ‘asm’ However, PIC is required in order to use shared libraries. The solution would be to not use EBX to pass arguments to the 'asm' statements, save EBX on the stack prior moving the respective kernel argument to the register, and, of course, restoring it after sysenter returns. Before I start changing the bindings, I'd like to know: is there anyone else working on the same problem? Would you be open to accept a change of the bindings to become PIC compliant on the costs of a few added instructions? Or do you have another suggestion how I should go about it? Best regards Norman -- Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske Genode Labs http://www.genode-labs.com · http://genode.org Genode Labs GmbH · Amtsgericht Dresden · HRB 28424 · Sitz Dresden Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske, Christian Helmuth

4 7

Can not build RefOS
by Gapry Un 08 Mar '16

08 Mar '16

Dear all, I follow the official step (https://github.com/seL4/refos-manifest) to build RefOS and it occurs the following error message. In file included from /home/chi-wai/Workspaces/microkernel/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c:16:0: ~/Workspaces/RefOS/stage/arm/imx31/include/refos/refos.h:73:1: *error: unknown type name ‘uint32_t’* ~/Workspaces/RefOS/stage/arm/imx31/include/refos/refos.h:73:23: *error: unknown type name ‘uint32_t’* In file included from /home/chi-wai/Workspaces/microkernel/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c:18:0: ~/Workspaces/RefOS/stage/arm/imx31/include/refos-util/cspace.h:44:72: *error: unknown type name ‘uint32_t’* ~/Workspaces/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c: In function ‘sync_create_mutex’: ~/Workspaces/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c:49:5: *warning*: ‘seL4_Notify’ is deprecated (declared at /home/chi-wai/Workspaces/microkernel/RefOS/stage/arm/imx31/include/sel4/deprecated.h:23): use seL4_Signal [-Wdeprecated-declarations] ~/Workspaces/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c: In function ‘sync_acquire’: ~/Workspaces/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c:65:5: *error: invalid initializer* ~/Workspaces/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c: In function ‘sync_release’: ~/Workspaces/RefOS/libs/librefos/src/sync.c:74:5: *warning*: ‘seL4_Notify’ is deprecated (declared at /home/chi-wai/Workspaces/microkernel/RefOS/stage/arm/imx31/include/sel4/deprecated.h:23): use seL4_Signal [-Wdeprecated-declarations] make[1]: *** [src/sync.o] Error 1 make: *** [librefos] Error 2 Does RefOS use the old seL4 API ? If it is, which version I need to downgrade? Thanks for any help or suggestion, Gapry. https://gapry.wordpress.com/

6 9

Re: [seL4] Devel Digest, Vol 21, Issue 11
by ぷ风过无痕?? 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

Hi everyone,I find an interesting problem when I read the code of endpoint(kernel\src\object\endpoint.c). In the sendIPC and receiveIPC functions , I see there are 3 states for an endpoint(Idle , send , receive). Below it is the state machine diagram. sendIPC EPState_Recv ——> EPState_Idle ——>EPState_send receiveIPC EPState_send——> EPState_Idle ——>EPState_Recv But when I add some print infomation, I find the endpoint can never reach the Send state. I think the correct state machine diagram just has two states(idle and receive). sendIPC EPState_Recv ——> EPState_Idle receiveIPC EPState_Idle ——>EPState_Recv Am I right???

2 1

Timer for AM335x
by Julien Delange 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

I am trying to develop a camkes application with one component having access to the timer. I got some inspiration from the time server for the kzm machine. Now, I am trying to port that to the am335x machine to execute on a beagleboard black. I dig into the code and found the appropriate platform-specific functions to call. Unfortunately, when trying to compile, it fails (see below). Anybody has an idea why this happens? Also, if you want to look at the camkes application, I put it on github at https://github.com/juli1/sel4-experiments/tree/master/camkes/pingimpl-am335x Thanks for any help! /home/sel4/test/camkes/build/arm/am335x/pingimpl/src/timer/static/components/timer/src/timer.o: In function `irq_callback': /home/sel4/test/camkes/apps/pingimpl/components/timer/src/timer.c:22: undefined reference to `dm_handle_irq' /home/sel4/test/camkes/apps/pingimpl/components/timer/src/timer.c:32: undefined reference to `dm_oneshot_relative' /home/sel4/test/camkes/build/arm/am335x/pingimpl/src/timer/static/components/timer/src/timer.o: In function `run': /home/sel4/test/camkes/apps/pingimpl/components/timer/src/timer.c:58: undefined reference to `dm_oneshot_relative' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

2 2

handling timer with camkes
by Julien Delange 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

Dear all, I would like to build a scheduler on top of camkes. I figure that I have to get access to the timer irq and start from there (e.g. then, dispatch other tasks according to the number of elapsed ticks). I did find some relevant examples, especially in the camkes-vm ( https://github.com/seL4/camkes-vm) but nothing I can try. Is there any information about such materials? I tried to reuse the component but always got build error. I was wondering if there was an existing tutorial or an example I could try that will help me. Thanks. Julien.

2 3

Allocation of untyped memory
by Norman Feske 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Hello, while moving Genode's seL4 support to seL4 version 2, I stumbled over the dynamic allocation within untyped memory regions. In the old experimental branch that I used previously, the retype-untyped operation allowed me to manually specify an offset where the new kernel object should be placed within the untyped memory region. So I was able to manage the allocation of untyped memory manually. In short, I added each initial untyped memory region to a roottask-local "phys-mem" allocator. Each time when creating a kernel object, I asked this allocator for a region of the required size and alignment, determined the untyped-memory capability that belongs to the found region, and used this capability to create the kernel object(s) at the calculated offset within the untyped-memory region. This worked very well. After switching to version 2, I found the retype-untyped operation to lack the offset argument (which admittedly was never present in the non-experimental version). Instead of accepting an offset parameter, the kernel maintains a built-in allocator per untyped-memory region. (please correct me if my understanding is wrong) The allocator is basically a simple offset value ("FreeIndex") that is increased with each allocation. Since I no longer have the chance to specify the offset explicitly, I have to rely on the allocation policy of the kernel and hit the following problem: There exists an untyped memory region of size 0x2000. Initially, the FreeIndex is 0. Now, I am creating the following kernel objects within the untyped-memory region: 1. CNode with totalObjectSize 0x400: -> The allocation increases FreeIndex to 0x400. 2. CNode with totalObjectSize 0x800: -> The FreeIndex gets aligned to 0x800 (natural alignment of the to-be-created CNode). This creates a gap between 0x400 and 0x800. -> The allocation increases FreeIndex to 0x1000. 3. seL4_IA32_4K with a totalObjectSize 0x1000: -> The allocation increases FreeIndex to 0x2000. 4. CNode with totalObjectSize 0x400: <<seL4 [decodeUntypedInvocation/209 T0xe3fc9900 "rootserver" @2013228]: Untyped Retype: Insufficient memory (1 * 1024 bytes needed, 0 bytes available).>> Since FreeIndex equals the size of the untyped memory region, the kernel concludes that untypedFreeBytes is 0. Even though there exists a gap of 0x400 within the untyped memory region that satisfies the alignment of the to-be-created kernel object, the kernel won't allow me to use it. In contrast, with the retype-untyped-at-offset operation, such a situation never occurred. Right now, I am a bit puzzled about how to proceed and have the following questions in the back of me head: * What is the rationale behind fixing the allocation policy within untyped memory regions in the kernel. Doesn't this design contradict with the principle of avoiding policy in the kernel? In my specific case, this policy seemingly makes my life much more difficult. To use the kernel in a deterministic way, I would need to model the kernel's allocation behavior in the user land. * From what I gather from the kernel's source code, the built-in allocator would not allow me to reuse parts of untyped memory regions because 'FreeIndex' is always increasing. E.g., after revoking the CNodes of steps 1 and 2, I still cannot create any new kernel objects within the untyped memory region because FreeIndex remains equal the size of the untyped memory region. Is this correct? * Is it possible to give me the retyped-untyped-at-offset operation back? ;-) e.g., in the form of a patch? Or alternatively, are there any best practices that I could follow wrt managing untyped memory? Maybe I'm just approaching the problem from the wrong angle? Best regards Norman -- Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske Genode Labs http://www.genode-labs.com · http://genode.org Genode Labs GmbH · Amtsgericht Dresden · HRB 28424 · Sitz Dresden Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske, Christian Helmuth

3 5

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

Devel February 2016