Hacktoberfest 2026:维护者为十月标记出来的 issue,仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

composefs: Support changing the kernel without rebuilding the rootfs image

未关闭
#2,584 3 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
35/100
Issue 类型
功能
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
docker, rust

调研方向

Start with the existing bootc container split-kernel-and-rootfs and bootc container ukify --kernel-dir flow from #2185, then read #1498 and docs/src/relationship-particles.md. The issue leaves the assembly design, rootfs digest strategy, initramfs approach, Secure Boot trust, and backend scope open. Done means agreeing on those choices and providing a documented kernel image contract and tooling for producing a bootable image with a separately supplied kernel.

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

In the systemd DDI model the UKI is its own artifact: it pins the /usr
image by dm-verity root hash (usrhash=) and is updated by its own
systemd-sysupdate transfer, so in principle a new UKI can be built and
signed against an existing /usr image. In practice the kernel modules live
in /usr, so once /usr is sealed a kernel change still means a new image;
Bluefin Server hit exactly this and settled on one kernel per image (see
prior art). The property we want, a kernel that can be replaced without
touching the sealed rootfs, is one neither side has today. This issue is
about getting it for composefs/UKI systems.

This is about build and publish time, not about swapping kernels on a running
system. The goal is that the rootfs container image is built, rechunked and
(for sealed images) digested once, and a kernel can then be produced or
replaced against it by a separate step or pipeline, for example by a kernel
team that publishes kernel-only OCI images.

Today the kernel, the initramfs and /usr/lib/modules/<kver> all live in the
container image, and the UKI pins that image with composefs=<digest>, so any
kernel change means a new image build.

Use cases:

  • shipping a kernel CVE fix without rebuilding and re-rechunking every derived
    image
  • building several kernel flavors (debug, hardware enablement, vendor kernel)
    from one rootfs
  • letting a kernel be built by a different pipeline than the rootfs, as
    Dakota does with its kernel-only OCI images (see prior art)

What works today

Since #2185 the vmlinuz and initramfs can come from outside the rootfs
(bootc container split-kernel-and-rootfs, bootc container ukify --kernel-dir). So a per-kernel derived build is already possible:

FROM rootfs-rechunked AS base
FROM base AS with-kernel
COPY --from=kernel-image /usr/lib/modules /usr/lib/modules
RUN <build initramfs>
# ... compute digest, bootc container ukify --kernel-dir, sign, copy UKI back

The rootfs layers are shared, so the registry and the client dedup them. What
this does not give us:

  1. A stable rootfs digest. The modules go into the rootfs tree, so every
    (rootfs, kernel) pair has its own composefs digest. Anything bound to the
    rootfs digest (the sealing signature, attestations, the UKI cmdline) has
    to be redone per pair.
  2. An initramfs recipe. The initramfs mixes kernel modules with userspace
    from the rootfs (systemd, bootc-root-setup, dracut modules). Someone
    has to build it for each pair, and bootc has no documented way to do that
    from a kernel-only image plus a rootfs.
  3. Tooling. The flow above is a hand-written multi-stage Containerfile.
    There is no bootc container command that takes a rootfs and a kernel
    image and produces the bootable image.

Strawman

This isn't a proposal yet. It lists the pieces to get discussion going.

  • A kernel-only OCI image contract. /usr/lib/modules/<kver>/ with
    vmlinuz, the modules and modules.*, optionally /usr/src/<kver>
    headers, no userspace. Dakota's kernel image already has this shape.
    bootc container lint could check it.
  • An assembly command. Something like
    bootc container assemble --rootfs <img> --kernel <img> --to <img>
    (bikeshed) that copies the modules in, builds the initramfs against the
    rootfs userspace, computes the digest, runs ukify, and emits the final
    image. This is the same step #1498 wants for sealing, with the kernel as an
    input instead of taken from the rootfs. Signing stays a separate step as
    #1498 discusses.
  • Keeping the rootfs digest stable. If we want the digest to be
    independent of the kernel, the modules can't be part of the digested tree.
    Options:
    • (a) Accept that the digest changes per kernel. Simplest; the cost is one
      digest computation and one signing per pair. This is what the flow above
      does.
    • (b) Ship the modules as a second composefs image with its own digest,
      referenced from the UKI cmdline (e.g. bootc.kmods=<digest>), and have
      bootc-root-setup mount it over /usr/lib/modules/<kver> after
      verifying it. The rootfs digest is then kernel-independent, like
      usrhash=. #7 (sysext frontend) would need the same "stack a second
      verified image" mechanism.
    • (c) Keep the UKI generic and have it carry a persistent public key
      instead of a digest; the rootfs digest is then shipped as a signed blob
      that the initramfs verifies. This is the "persistent keypair" variant
      already described in docs/src/relationship-particles.md, with the
      downgrade caveat noted there.

Open questions

  • Is (a) enough? If the only cost of a kernel change is re-digesting and
    re-signing, maybe the tooling (assembly command plus a documented kernel
    image contract) is the whole feature and (b)/(c) aren't needed.
  • How to build the initramfs. Dakota's kernel image says "build the
    initramfs in the consumer", so the assembly step needs the rootfs
    userspace plus the kernel's modules. Because systemd-stub passes the
    .initrd sections of addons to the kernel alongside the UKI's own initrd,
    another option is a userspace initrd from the rootfs plus a modules initrd
    from the kernel image.
  • Out-of-tree modules (nvidia, akmods, anything a derived image builds
    against its kernel) sit in the rootfs and match only one kver. With (a)
    they'd have to be built in the assembly step; with (b) they'd have to move
    into the kernel image. Bluefin Server ships them as image-locked sysexts
    (see prior art).
  • Combining separately signed pieces under Secure Boot. With (b) or (c),
    anyone with write access to the ESP can combine independently signed
    pieces, for example an old vulnerable kernel with the current rootfs. Do we
    rely on SBAT generations or a TPM policy on PCR 11/12, or do we require (a)?
  • Scope. Should this cover only composefs, or the ostree backend too?
    Starting with composefs/UKI seems simplest.
  • Relationship to sysext. Should the modules image in (b) just be a
    bootc-managed system extension (#7)? Note the .sysext.raw images the UKI
    spec allows in $UKI.efi.extra.d/ only apply to the initrd and are dropped
    at switch-root, so they don't solve the host-side modules problem on their
    own. systemd-sysext and confext are unsupported on bootc today (#2436).

Prior art

  • Kernel-only OCI images. ghcr.io/projectbluefin/dakota-kernel-ubuntu
    (repo) is a
    scratch image with just /usr/lib/modules/<kver>/ (vmlinuz, modules,
    modules.*) and /usr/src/linux-<kver>/ headers, no userspace or
    initramfs; the consumer is expected to build the initramfs. Dakota consumes
    it at build time (BuildStream docker source with runtime/devel split
    rules). This is the input the assembly step would take.
  • Kernel modules as a sysext. Bluefin Server ships NVIDIA and ZFS modules
    as image-locked sysexts (VERSION_ID=<image-version>) under
    /usr/lib/modules/<kver>/extra/<name>/, deliberately without modules.*,
    and rebuilds a depmod index under /run before modprobe -d
    (docs).
    Option (b) would hit the same index problem.
  • UKI as a separate sysupdate transfer. Bluefin Server's
    files/os/sysupdate.d/{10-usr,11-usr-verity,20-uki}.transfer update /usr,
    its verity partition and the UKI as three artifacts sharing one version.
    They nonetheless settled on one kernel per image
    (projectbluefin/server#249), because the modules live in /usr.
  • Bluefin Server's history is the same tension. Before
    projectbluefin/server#262 the kernel was its own BuildStream element
    owning /usr/lib/modules (the userspace import deleted that path), a
    kernel.yml workflow exported a kernel-only artifact, and the UKI pinned
    nothing (plain XFS root, no usrhash=), so a new kernel was just a new
    UKI. #262 sealed /usr with verity and usrhash=; the modules were now
    inside the sealed tree, and #249 was closed as "one kernel per image".
    Sealing is what couples the kernel to the rootfs, not the filesystem
    layout.
  • Kernel-independent initrd. Bluefin Server builds its initrd from a
    dedicated minimal userspace stack (initrd-stack.bst), not from /usr,
    and copies in only the modules the kernel image provides
    (bluefin-server-boot.bst). One answer to the initramfs question above.
  • Module trust in the kernel. Their module signing cert is compiled into
    the kernel (SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS via a junction override) and the same key
    signs in-tree and sysext modules. A kernel-only image carrying its trusted
    cert lets out-of-tree modules be built by any pipeline holding the key,
    independent of the rootfs.

Related

  • #2185: removing the kernel and initrd from sealed images
    (split-kernel-and-rootfs, ukify --kernel-dir)
  • #1498: sealed image build UX (build the UKI, sign elsewhere, seal)
  • #2448: UKI addons support
  • #7: frontend for systemd-sysext
  • #2414: initramfs add-on entrypoint
  • #2436: docs saying sysext/confext are unsupported
  • docs/src/relationship-particles.md, "ephemeral key" vs. persistent keypair
    for binding the UKI to the root
  • composefs/composefs-rs#131: where the UKI goes, and excluding /boot from
    the digest

Assisted-by: AI
I reviewed it carefully.

主要语言
Rust
星标
2.3k
派生
230
平均合并
2 天 2 小时
30 天内合并 PR
41

环境准备

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

bootc-dev/bootc 的其他 Issue

查看 bootc-dev/bootc 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Rust Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。