Re: LFS thoughts

Brad Spencer <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.devel.kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Thor Lancelot Simon <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 06:09:31PM -0700, Konrad Schroder wrote:
>> 
>> There has been quite a lot of work on LFS in the last 20 years, some with
>> hints of a roadmap.?? Does anyone else have specific ideas about the most
>> glaring issues, or what should be done next?
>
> I have been looking at the original Sprite LFS code (still available for
> download, with a reasonable license) and wondering if many of the design
> decisions made in rewriting it for 4.4BSD were actually as valid as CSRG
> thought.  I think the largest architectural changes could be summarized as:
>
> * Move the cleaner out of the kernel (I have long thought this was a bad
>   idea for security reasons, and it sounds like you have concluded it is
>   also a bad idea for concurrency/correctness reasons)
>
> * Move inodes and the ifile "into the log" instead of just keeping them
>   at the front of the disk.  It sounds like you are now concluding this
>   decision was bad too, at least as originally implemented.
>
> * Share various on-disk and in-memory structures with the FFS code.  We
>   now have lots of filesystems that don't, so I'm not sure how much of
>   an advantage this is, really, and I think there are ways it complicates
>   FFS, not for the better.
>
> This leaves me wondering whether, given the scope and complexity of what
> it sounds like you're thinking of diving into to fix BSD LFS some more,
> and the likelihood of breaking backwards compatibility with older BSD LFS
> filesystems, it might make more sense to start over with the code from
> Sprite.


I have tried to make use of LFS over the years without any success.  The
last attempt was with a 9.x pkgsrc build environment where WRKOBJDIR
pointed to a LFS filesystem.  This would have probably been on a amd64
system type, but might have been a earmv6hf or earmv7hf environment
(don't remember).  Although it was better then in the past, the
environment hung up pretty quickly.  When it functioned, it was quite
fast, and made a good WRKOBJDIR destination in that respect, but wasn't
at all stable.

Has anyone actually tried to use (and I mean that it the non trivial
sense) LFS lately and actually had it not lock the system up??






-- 
Brad Spencer - [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.