Distributions

Bedrock Linux

The design goal of Bedrock Linux is to allow users to mix and match pieces from multiple distributions at will. If one wants something that looks mostly like openSUSE, but with the ability to source-install a bleeding-edge LibreOffice from Gentoo next to tried-and-stable PostgreSQL server from CentOS, Bedrock Linux will make that possible. If one wants to fall back to Emacs from Debian stable because the latest Rawhide update broke it again, one can. As the project web site says: "Packages feel disposable, like toothpicks. No need to fret over one breaking; just use another." The end result should be a world where users never have to commit to a specific distribution because all distributions of interest to them will be available simultaneously.

The Bedrock Linux core exists mostly to boot the system and facilitate the running of applications from multiple "client" distributions. As such, it is a bit of a strange and minimal beast. The syslinux bootloader is used to keep things as simple as possible. The kernel is Linux, of course; the Bedrock user space is based on Busybox, so there is not a lot to it. It is all intended to be robust and to function even if an important client distribution breaks; to that end, the core Bedrock binaries are all statically linked. Static linking is also needed to ensure that those utilities will work regardless of the client distribution context they might be run in.

The client distributions are installed under /var/chroot, so /var/chroot/fedora would host a Fedora installation. Users can run a command out of any distribution, but the work that must be done under the hood to make that happen is significant. As might be guessed from the directory names, Bedrock Linux uses the chroot() system call to run programs in the distribution context they expect. The brc command makes all this happen; typing:

    brc fedora firefox

would use chroot() to restrict the process's view to /var/chroot/fedora, then run the firefox binary from there.

The idea is conceptually simple, but it quickly runs into complications. What if that firefox binary wants to run a helper program from a different distribution? That requires the ability to break out of the restricted root, somehow. Bedrock makes this happen with a combination of setuid binaries and bind mounts. From the outside, it looks like it might have been better to make use of namespaces to reshape each process's view of the filesystem, but that is not the direction Bedrock took.

The result is that everything that must be visible to any distribution-specific program must be bind-mounted into the restricted root. That is, to begin with, how commands get access to the user's home directory. Regardless of which distribution context a process is running in, /home will be properly mounted to be visible there. In the current alpha release (1.0alpha2, known as "Momo"), every process has all of the directories for all distributions bind-mounted into it. This mounting is done on the fly as commands are run, leading to some complex topologies.

That complexity turns out to be a bit of a problem; as the Bedrock developers say in the notes for the upcoming 1.0alpha3 release:

Performance is at the top of the list of "down sides," but it's clear that a system configured like this can be unwieldy in a number of ways. So it will be replaced in 1.0alpha3 with a new version of the brc command that, when a distribution boundary is to be crossed, will simply break out of the restricted root and enter a new one for the new distribution. That eliminates the need to set up lots of new bind mounts at every command invocation, at the cost of needing to run a setuid breakout program instead.

Given that initialization systems have been a hot topic recently, one might well wonder what Bedrock does in this area. Can one easily switch from, say, OpenRC to systemd? The answer is that Bedrock literally does nothing:

Setting up Bedrock, thus, is not a task for users wanting a one-click installation experience. Especially since Bedrock does not really have an installer of its own at all. The FAQ entry on why there is no installer is amusing reading, to say the least. Suffice to say that Bedrock, for now, is for users who want to do a lot of their own setup and tweaking. It may be especially well suited for those users who have gotten frustrated with the way distributions like Gentoo do everything for them.

It is also not for users who want something in a hurry; 1.0alpha3 is planned for release by "end-of-summer 2013." And that will still be an alpha release.

Whether Bedrock Linux will ever get past the alpha stage is anybody's guess. It has the look of an ambitious project with a relatively small amount of developer time available to it. It also looks a little bit insane. But, then, what is free software for if somebody can't take an insane idea and run with it? Some interesting ideas may well come out of the Bedrock Linux project; it will be fun to watch.

Comments (7 posted)

Distribution quotes of the week

Comments (8 posted)

Ubuntu 12.10 (Quantal Quetzal) Beta 1 Released

Full Story (comments: 10)

bits from the DPL: August 2012

Full Story (comments: none)

Bits from the FTPTeam, upcoming meeting

Full Story (comments: none)

Distribution newsletters

• DistroWatch Weekly, Issue 473 (September 10)
• Maemo Weekly News (September 10)
• Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, Issue 282 (September 9)

Comments (none posted)