Re: [9fans] GSoC 2021 project ideas

[Conor Williams <conor.williams@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3596 bytes --]

some of the fuseblk disc/k drivers/modules on peppermint which is a flavour
of ubuntu
are not even in the kernel space and there are mount.XYZ processes left
open which are
wide open to attack (with # fuser -p <PID>) /c09
for those chips tings

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:24 AM hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:

> i think the main reason people are willing to fall for the android
> platform is bec. there is no good long-term supply of updated phone
> hardware with backwards-compatible interfaces.
>
> a lot of qualcomm and mediatek chipsets are being built, but instead
> of documentation they only ship half-baked linux drivers, which are
> often not even mainlined.
>
> those linux drivers are already hard to make work on actual linux
> distributions, or even on android distributions.
>
> who wants to reverse-engineer the hardware over and over again based
> on such linux drivers...
>
> On 9/20/21, Ethan Gardener <eekee57@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > tl;dr: forget inferno, port plan 9 to the pine phone.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, at 6:43 AM, Dave Eckhardt wrote:
> >> > Anyone know if this project went anywhere?
> >> >
> >> > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~412/lectures/L05_Purge_Proposal.pdf
> >
> > I had to laugh at one of the slides. Inferno running natively on "x86
> > supercomputer"? I think implementing multicore support would be a first
> > step, not to mention 64-bit! While it would be nice if those jobs were
> done,
> > they will take time and effort. Overall, if porting natively, I see
> little
> > sense in preferring Inferno to Plan 9, especially as Plan 9 already
> supports
> > 64-bit multicore.
> >
> >> Sadly, not.  One issue is that modern Android releases don't
> >> support 32-bit executables, and at the time that project was
> >> attempted Inferno was somewhat 32-bit (I haven't looked since).
> >
> > Recalling the issues Hellaphone had and the time it took, I'm of the
> opinion
> > that getting Inferno to work on any given phone's Linux kernel is hardly
> > more worthwhile than porting it directly to the hardware. The kernels
> have
> > undocumented interfaces.
> >
> > A current thread on OSdev (operating system development) forums is
> looking
> > at phones. It's a little rambly, but it reports on some encouraging
> things.
> > Lots of "baseband processors" (the phone-network communication
> subsystems)
> > have documented interfaces. There are at least 2 phones available now
> which
> > are fully open for operating system development: the PinePhone and the
> > Librem 5. (5 is the screen size.) Of the 2, the Pine Phone seems better,
> not
> > least because it can boot from the SD card; useful for testing.
> > https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53251
> >
> > There's also the option of building your own phone out of components. The
> > thread has some info. I'm guessing most here would prefer a PinePhone.
> >
> >> But I think I saw some recent-ish Inferno-on-Android activity here:
> >>
> >>   https://github.com/bhgv/Inferno-OS-bhgv
> >
> > That's probably a good source of code. bhgv is a freelance programmer who
> > was very interested in Inferno and made several improvements including
> > Truetype fonts. The last I heard was he tried to find paid work involving
> > Inferno but couldn't, so he didn't have time to work on it.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T39aec8f3f9d8503d-Md3c9ddc97c8acc196f3b1896
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5638 bytes --]