[seL4] Re: capdl-loader questions

I've been investigating how capd-loader works and have some questions. My apologies if these were previously discussed. 1. CDL_Model is mutable. The capDL specification looks like a perfect candidate for being in .rodata but it's stored+treated as mutable. Why? I see capdl-loader uses the mutability to store mapped page frame caps and, for risc-v, VSpace roots, but both can be easily handled w/o modifying the spec. Having this immutable has many benefits. 2. All page frames are treated as shared. CAPDL_SHARED_FRAMES is #define'd in the code so every frame is treated as shared. This inflates the size of the orig_caps array and the kernel capabilities table but seems unnecessary. Why? I've verified that instead of doing the Copy op on each page you can just check the return of the seL4_Page_Map call and if necessary clone the cap. Better would be for camkes to identify shared page frames so this doesn't require 2x syscalls (which spam's the console w/ CONFIG_PRINTING enabled). 3. Why does copy_addr_with_pt exist? There are two memory regions created for mapping page frames into the rootserver address space for doing fill ops. One is 64KB and the other is 1 page (nominally 4KB). init_frame tries the 4KB region first then falls back to the 64K region if mapping into the 4KB region fails. Why (i.e. why would the 1st mapping call fail)? On my risc-v system I never use the 64K region and I'm not sure when it might be used? Even if it were used, why is 64K always allocated; seems like the region should be sized according to the target platform. Having this extra region has a cost that can be significant on small systems.

4. console output. Why is sel4_DebugPutChar (or similar) not a standard part of the kernel? This forces capdl-loader to depend on libsel4platsupport for console output which in turn affects cap space. I can't imagine an seL4 system that cannot write to the console and I think it's entirely reasonable to have a critical system service like the rootserver use that.

5. duplicate_caps. The scheme for constructing a running system from a spec is straightforward except for duplicating caps. Why are all TCB's and CNode caps dup'd? Why does init_tcbs call init_tcb on the original object but immediately configure_tcb on the dup? There are other places where the dup cap is used instead of the original cap (e.g. init_cnode_slot). None of this seems to matter on risc-v; maybe this matters on some other architectures? 6. On risc-v all pages appear to be marked executable--including ipc buffers! This seems just wrong and a potential security hole.

7. Why does seL4_TCB_WriteRegisters take a _mutable_ seL4_UserContext? I'm guessing this is a mistake in the xml spec (but haven't looked).

8. init_cspaces mystifies me. There are two loops over all CNodes; one that does "COPY" operations and one that does "MOVE" operations. I see nothing explaining what's happening. I've read this code many times and still don't get it; please explain. 9. According to comments, the use of a global static to setup the UserContext for a new TCB is done because one cannot take the address of a local variable. On what architecture is this true? On risc-v the context is copied into "registers" before calling the kernel so this doesn't appear to be an issue with crossing the user-kernel protection boundary. 10. Memory reclamation. I'm unclear what happens to the memory used by capdl-loader. The process does a TCB_Suspend call when it's done. Does this cause the CSpace & VSpace to be reclaimed? For CAmkES this doesn't matter as there's no support for allocating memory but I'm building a system where this isn't true. How do I release memory (in particular) back to the untyped pool?

I have a bunch of niggly code complaints/questions but let's start with the above. -Sam