Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP
Failed to load latest commit information.
doc
embedded-dependencies embedded-dependencies: Fix ACLOCAL_FLAGS, update for libgsystem
packages
src ot-main: Ignore lt- prefixes in binary names
tests
.gitignore
.gitmodules Add libgsystem as git external
COPYING
COPYING.GPL
COPYING.LGPL Switch to LGPLv2+ for most code
Makefile-daemon.am build: Add --enable-triggers-only
Makefile-libostree.am
Makefile-ostree.am
Makefile-otutil.am
Makefile-switchroot.am build: Add --enable-triggers-only
Makefile-triggers.am
Makefile.am build: Add autogen.sh, the COPYING.{GPL,LGPL} files to EXTRA_DIST
README.md
TODO
autogen.sh autogen: Only do submodule update if we don't have libgsystem
configure.ac
ostree.doap ostree.doap: Update

README.md

Note, I'm slowly trying to move some of this content to

https://live.gnome.org/OSTree

OSTree

Problem statement

Hacking on the core operating system is painful - this includes most of GNOME from upower and NetworkManager up to gnome-shell. I want a system that matches these requirements:

  1. Does not disturb your existing OS
  2. Is not terribly slow to use
  3. Shares your $HOME - you have your data
  4. Allows easy rollback
  5. Ideally allows access to existing apps

Comparison with existing tools

  • Virtualization

    Fails on points 2) and 3). Actually qemu-kvm can be pretty fast, but in a lot of cases there is no substitute for actually booting on bare metal; GNOME 3 really needs some hardware GPU acceleration.

  • Rebuilding distribution packages

    Fails on points 1) and 4). Is also just very annoying: dpkg/rpm both want tarballs, which you don't have since you're working from git. The suggested "mock/pbuilder" type chroot builds are slow. And even with non-chroot builds there is lots of pointless build wrapping going on. Both dpkg and rpm also are poor at helping you revert back to the original system.

    All of this can be scripted to be less bad of course - and I have worked on such scripts. But fundamentally you're still fighting the system, and if you're hacking on a lowlevel library like say glib, you can easily get yourself to the point where you need a recovery CD - at that point your edit/compile/debug cycle is just too long.

  • "sudo make install"

    Now your system is in an undefined state. You can use e.g. rpm -qV to try to find out what you overwrote, but neither dpkg nor rpm will help clean up any files left over that aren't shipped by the old package.

    This is most realistic option for people hacking on system components currently, but ostree will be better.

  • LXC / containers

    Fails on 3), and 4) is questionable. Also shares the annoying part of rebuilding distribution packages. LXC is focused on running multiple server systems at the same time, which isn't what we want (at least, not right now), and honestly even trying to support that for a graphical desktop would be a lot of tricky work, for example getting two GDM instances not to fight over VT allocations. But some bits of the technology may make sense to use.

  • jhbuild + distribution packages

    The state of the art in GNOME - but can only build non-root things - this means you can't build NetworkManager, and thus are permanently stuck on whatever the distro provides.

Who is ostree for?

First - operating system developers and testers. I specifically keep a few people in mind - Dan Williams and Eric Anholt, as well as myself obviously. For Eric Anholt, a key use case for him is being able to try out the latest gnome-shell, and combine it with his work on Mesa, and see how it works/performs - while retaining the ability to roll back if one or both breaks.

The rollback concept is absolutely key for shipping anything to enthusiasts or knowledable testers. With a system like this, a tester can easily perform a local rollback - something just not well supported by dpkg/rpm. (What about Conary? See below.)

Also, distributing operating system trees (instead of packages) gives us a sane place to perform automated QA before we ship it to testers. We should never be wasting these people's time.

Even better, this system would allow testers to bisect across operating system builds, and do so very efficiently.

The core idea - chroots

chroots are the original lightweight "virtualization". Let's use them. So basically, you install a mainstream distribution (say Debian). It has a root filesystem like this:

    /usr
    /etc
    /home
    ...

Now, what we can do is have a system that installs chroots as a subdirectory of the root, like:

    /ostree/gnomeos-3.0-opt-393a4555/{usr,etc,sbin,...}
    /ostree/gnomeos-3.2-opt-7e9788a2/{usr,etc,sbin,...}

These live in the same root filesystem as your regular distribution (Note though, the root partition should be reasonably sized, or hopefully you've used just one big partition).

You should be able to boot into one of these roots. Since ostree lives inside a distro created partition, a tricky part here is that we need to know how to interact with the installed distribution's grub. This is an annoying but tractable problem.

First, we install a kernel+initramfs alongside the distribution's. Then, we have a "trampoline" ostree-init binary which is statically linked, and boot the kernel with init=/ostree/ostree-init. This then takes care of chrooting and running the init binary.

An important note here is that we bind mount the real /home. This means you have your data. This also implies we share uid/gid, so /etc/passwd will have to be in sync. Probably what we'll do is have a script to pull the data from the "host" OS.

I've decided for now to move /var into /ostree to avoid sharing it with the "host" distribution, because in practice we're likely to hit incompatibilities.

Do note however /etc lives inside the OSTree; it's presently versioned and readonly like everything else.

On a pure OSTree system, the filesystem layout will look like this:

    .
    |-- boot
    |-- home
    |-- ostree
    |   |-- var
    |   |-- current -> gnomeos-3.2-opt-7e9788a2
    |   |-- gnomeos-3.0-opt-393a4555
    |   |   |-- etc
    |   |   |-- lib
    |   |   |-- mnt
    |   |   |-- proc
    |   |   |-- run
    |   |   |-- sbin
    |   |   |-- srv
    |   |   |-- sys
    |   |   `-- usr
    |   `-- gnomeos-3.2-opt-7e9788a2
    |       |-- etc
    |       |-- lib
    |       |-- mnt
    |       |-- proc
    |       |-- run
    |       |-- sbin
    |       |-- srv
    |       |-- sys
    |       `-- usr
    |-- root

Making this efficient

One of the first things you'll probably ask is "but won't that use a lot of disk space"? Indeed, it will, if you just unpack a set of RPMs or .debs into each root.

Besides chroots, there's another old Unix idea we can take advantage of - hard links. These allow sharing the underlying data of a file, with the tradeoff that changing any one file will change all names that point to it. This mutability means that we have to either:

  1. Make sure everything touching the operating system breaks hard links This is probably tractable over a long period of time, but if anything has a bug, then it corrupts the file effectively.
  2. Make the core OS read-only, with a well-defined mechanism for mutating under the control of ostree.

I chose 2.

A userspace content-addressed versioning filesystem

At its very core, that's what ostree is. Just like git. If you understand git, you know it's not like other revision control systems. git is effectively a specialized, userspace filesystem, and that is a very powerful idea.

At the core of git is the idea of "content-addressed objects". For background on this, see http://book.git-scm.com/7_how_git_stores_objects.html

Why not just use git? Basically because git is designed mainly for source trees - it goes to effort to be sure it's compressing text for example, under the assumption that you have a lot of text. Its handling of binaries is very generic and unoptimized.

In contrast, ostree is explicitly designed for binaries, and in particular one type of binary - ELF executables (or it will be once we start using bsdiff).

Another big difference versus git is that ostree uses hard links between "checkouts" and the repository. This means each checkout uses almost no additional space, and is extremely fast to check out. We can do this because again each checkout is designed to be read-only.

So we mentioned above there are:

    /ostree/gnomeos-3.2-opt-7e9788a2
    /ostree/gnomeos-3.2-opt-393a4555

There is also a "repository" that looks like this:

    /ostree/repo/objects/17/a95e8ca0ba655b09cb68d7288342588e867ee0.file
    /ostree/repo/objects/17/68625e7ff5a8db77904c77489dc6f07d4afdba.meta
    /ostree/repo/objects/17/cc01589dd8540d85c0f93f52b708500dbaa5a9.file
    /ostree/repo/objects/30
    /ostree/repo/objects/30/6359b3ca7684358a3988afd005013f13c0c533.meta
    /ostree/repo/objects/30/8f3c03010cedd930b1db756ce659c064f0cd7f.meta
    /ostree/repo/objects/30/8cf0fd8e63dfff6a5f00ba5a48f3b92fb52de7.file
    /ostree/repo/objects/30/6cad7f027d69a46bb376044434bbf28d63e88d.file

Each object is either metadata (like a commit or tree), or a hard link to a regular file.

Note that also unlike git, the checksum here includes metadata such as uid, gid, permissions, and extended attributes. (It does not include file access times, since those shouldn't matter for the OS)

This is another important component to allowing the hardlinks. We wouldn't want say all empty files to be shared necessarily. (Though maybe this is wrong, and since the OS is readonly, we can make all files owned by root without loss of generality).

However this tradeoff means that we probably need a second index by content, so we don't have to redownload the entire OS if permissions change =)

Atomic upgrades, rollback

OSTree is designed to atomically swap operating systems - such that during an upgrade and reboot process, you either get the full new system, or the old one. There is no "Please don't turn off your computer". We do this by simply using a symbolic link like:

/ostree/current -> /ostree/gnomeos-3.4-opt-e3b0c4429

Where gnomeos-e3b0c4429 has the full regular filesystem tree with usr/ etc/ directories as above. To upgrade or rollback (there is no difference internally), we simply check out a new tree into gnomeos-b90ae4763 for example, then swap the "current" symbolic link, then remove the old tree.

But does this mean you have to reboot for OS upgrades? Very likely, yes - and this is no different from RPM/deb or whatever. They just typically lie to you about it =)

A typical model with RPM/deb is to unpack the new files, then use some IPC mechanism (SIGHUP, a control binary like /usr/sbin/apachectl) to signal the running process to reload. There are multiple problems with this - one is that in the new state, daemon A may depend on the updated configuration in daemon B. This may not be particularly common in default configurations, but it's highly likely that that some deployments will have e.g. apache talking to a local MySQL instance. So you really want to do is only apply the updated configuration when all the files are in place; not after each RPM or .deb is installed.

What's even harder is the massive set of race conditions that are possible while RPM/deb are in the process of upgrading. Cron jobs are very likely to hit this. If we want the ability to apply updates to a live system, we could first pause execution of non-upgrade userspace tasks. This could be done via SIGSTOP for example. Then, we can swap around the filesystem tree, and then finally attempt to apply updates via SIGHUP, and if possible, restart processes.

Configuration Management

By now if you've thought about this problem domain before, you're wondering about configuration management. In other words, if the OS is read only, how do I edit /etc/sudoers?

Well, have you ever been a system administrator on a zypper/yum system, done an RPM update, which then drops .rpmnew files in your /etc/ that you have to go and hunt for with "find" or something, and said to yourself, "Wow, this system is awesome!!!" ? Right, that's what I thought.

Configuration (and systems) management is a tricky problem, and I certainly don't have a magic bullet. However, one large conceptual improvement I think is defaulting to "rebase" versus "merge".

This means that we won't permit direct modification of /etc - instead, you HAVE to write a script which accomplishes your goals. To generate a tree, we check out a new copy, then run your script on top.

If the script fails, we can roll back the update, or drop to a shell if interactive.

However, we also need to consider cases where the administrator modifies state indirectly by a program. Think "adduser" for example.

Possible approaches:

  1. Patch all of these programs to know how to write to the writable location, instead of the R/O bind mount overlay.
  2. Move the data to /var

What about "packages"?

There are several complex and separate issues hiding in this seemingly simple question.

I think OSTree always makes sense to use as a core operating system builder and updater. By "core" here I mean the parts that aren't removable. Debian has Essential: yes, any other distribution has this too implicitly in the set of dependencies for their updater tool.

Now, let me just say I will absolutely support using something like apt/yum/zypper (and consequently deb/rpm) on top of OSTree. This isn't trivial, but there aren't any conceptual issues.

Concretely for example, RPM or .deb might make sense as a delivery vehicle for third party OS extensions. A canoncial example is the NVidia graphics driver.

If one is using OSTree to build an operating system, then there has to be some API for applications. And that demands its own targeted solution - something like an evolved glick (zeroinstall is also similar).

Current package systems are totally broken for application deployment though; for example, they will remove files away from under running applications on update. And we clearly need the ability to install and upgrade applications without rebooting the OS.

Details of RPM installation

We should be able to install LSB rpms. This implies providing "rpm". The tricky part here is since the OS itself is not assembled via RPMs, we need to fake up a database of "provides" as if we were. Even harder would be maintaining binary compatibilty with any arbitrary %post scripts that may be run.

What about BTRFS? Doesn't it solve everything?

In short, BTRFS is not a magic bullet, but yes - it helps significantly. The obvious thing to do is layer BTRFS under dpkg/rpm, and have a separate subvolume for /home so rollbacks don't lose your data. See e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemRollbackWithBtrfs

As a general rule an issue with the BTRFS is that it can't roll back just changes to things installed by RPM (i.e. what's in rpm -qal).

For example, it's possible to e.g. run yum update, then edit something in /etc, reboot and notice things are broken, then roll back and have silently lost your changes to /etc.

Another example is adding a new binary in /usr/local. You could say, "OK, we'll use subvolumes for those!". But then what about /var (and your VM images that live in /var/lib/libvirt ?)

Finally, probably the biggest disadvantage of the rpm/dpkg + BTRFS approach is it doesn't solve the race conditions that happen when unpacking packages into the live system. This problem is really important to me.

Note though ostree can definitely take advantage of BTRFS features! In particular, we could use "reflink" http://lwn.net/Articles/331808/ instead of hard links, and avoid having the object store corrupted if somehow the files are modified directly.

Other systems

I've spent a long time thinking about this problem, and here are some of the other possible solutions out there I looked at, and why I didn't use them:

Development

Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.