057f34f92471aea7f86a5b4701b98080ee49cbde
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 jschoubben
|
057f34f924 |
The init is asked for start and restart; a launcher does the rest
ADR 0061. Recovery was the most systemd-specific part of the host, and it is the part that must work on a machine where nothing else does -- which made unit-file syntax a poor place for it, because syntax cannot be tested and the one time it runs is the one time nobody can afford it wrong. So StartLimitBurst and OnFailure move into a launcher script that init starts instead of the host. The unit drops to start-at-boot and restart-on-exit, which OpenRC, runit, s6 and an Android init.rc can all express. Everything 0059 decided is kept: two watchdogs, roll back once, recovery is local, the rollback shares no code with the host. The counter is the whole mechanism, so it is what the tests are mostly about. Three real problems came out of writing them: A counter file holding "1 2" became "12" -- `tr -d [:space:]` concatenates rather than rejecting -- which is past the limit, so a HEALTHY node rolled itself back. Now it reads the first field and insists on a plain integer. The corrupt-counter test used "not-a-number", which shell arithmetic happens to evaluate to 0, so it passed with the guard removed and proved nothing. Replaced with values that discriminate: "5x" errors under set -e and kills the launcher, and "0x10" is read as HEX 16 -- past the limit, so again a healthy node rolls back. And the test harness itself was wrong. With `set -e` and a bare launcher call, removing a guard killed the script at the first corrupt case and silently skipped everything after -- reporting a full pass over tests that never ran. Every launcher call now records its failure instead of aborting. Same class as the placebo assertion found last time, and the reason to keep injecting faults rather than trusting green. Both scripts run in `make check`. 27 launcher tests, 9 rollback tests, all confirmed to bite. |
||
|
jschoubben
|
f4143806c2 |
Build the rollback mechanism, and test it
ADR 0059's recovery path: the pieces that run when the host will not start. internal/upgrade -- two facts, neither of them the host judging its health. Whether the executable this process started from has been replaced on disk, and which version last completed a reconcile. The first design was wrong and the tests caught it, not review. It asked /proc/self/exe whether it was marked deleted. That is Linux procfs behaviour rather than a fact about files, and it catches only unlink -- a binary swapped by rename onto the same path reads as untouched, which is exactly what a package manager does. Now the identity is captured at start and compared later: no procfs, and neither case missed. known-good is one bare line. The reader is a shell script on a machine where the host is failing to start, so it must not need a parser to be present and working. Written only after a clean apply, which is the whole claim -- not health, because a disconnected node is ordinary and a failing resource is the machine's problem rather than the binary's. packaging/ -- the unit, the rollback unit, and the rollback script. The script shares no code with the host and calls none of it: a binary that cannot start cannot be its own recovery. POSIX sh, nothing that has to be installed. The unit carries Restart=always with a comment saying why on-failure would break every upgrade. Both are tested and both sets of tests were confirmed to bite. Injecting five faults broke exactly the intended tests -- except one, and chasing why it did not found a placebo assertion I had written: `check "exits zero" ... "0" "0"` compares a literal to itself and can never fail. Replaced with the real exit code, after which the injection bites. Also caught: an injection that produced a build failure rather than a test failure, which my grep read as "no failure". Re-run so it compiled, and the test did bite. The script test runs in `make check`, so it is a gate rather than something that was run once. Verified against the real binary: known-good is written beside the store after a clean apply and is NOT written after a failed one. |
||
|
jschoubben
|
08a1263a81 |
Stage 2 — the bundle a host carries
novox/hq ADR 0038: one behaviour, two sources of declaration. This is the source that does not need a mesh — the first node's path. The bundle is embedded in the binary rather than shipped beside it, because "copy it onto a machine and run it is the whole installation" stops being true the moment a second file has to arrive with it. `make host BUNDLE=...` builds a host carrying one; `mesh-host reconcile` applies it; `mesh-host bundle` shows it. A default build carries nothing and REFUSES to reconcile, saying why. A host that applied nothing and reported success would look exactly like one that raised a first node, and the difference would surface later as a mesh that never came up with nothing to point at. Proved on a sealed machine: no route out, no name resolution, one binary copied on, and it configured itself from what it carried. Idempotent on the second run. One bug found by running rather than reasoning, and it is a shape worth naming: `mesh-host bundle` validated the carried bundle through a path that strips comments, while `reconcile` handed the raw bytes to the parser. So the command whose whole job is to check the bundle said yes, and the command that uses it said no. Two paths to one artefact, disagreeing. There is one path now, and a test asserts that what validates is what is applied. What this does NOT prove is stated in the README rather than left implied: the claim under stage 2 is that one host can raise the substrate alone, and the substrate is four container services. There is no container type, because a container needs an image and where images come from is open; what belongs in a substrate is not known, because the closure for a one-node mesh is what research 011 and 012 exist to answer; and the machine used to test this cannot install a container runtime through a sealed network. The mechanism is finished. The claim is not, and shipping a host that claimed a substrate it has never raised would be the fault this whole project is about. 65 tests. |
||
|
jschoubben
|
73c010e7ef |
Stage 1 — the host reports what a machine is and can do
Tier 0's first slice, per novox/hq 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/05-the-node-host.md. It applies nothing, connects to nothing, listens on nothing. 2.9 MB, static, no dynamic dependencies: copy it onto a machine and run it is the whole install, which is the property ADR 0041 rests on. A capability is detected, never assumed. Every detector runs something that only succeeds if the thing FUNCTIONS — the daemon is asked for its version, the package database is queried, the firewall is asked to list a ruleset, which needs the privilege as well as the tool. 04-ISSUES/007 is the fault this prevents: a client on disk with its daemon down looks exactly like a working runtime, and a node assigned work on that basis fails when the work arrives. Every verdict carries the reason and the method. A capability reported absent with no reason is the same fault in a new place: something nobody can act on. Two bugs found by running rather than reasoning, both silent: systemctl is-system-running exits non-zero for every state except `running` — including `degraded`, which means units failed and the init is emphatically there. Reading the exit code reported NO service manager on a machine whose init it was. That is 007 in the mirror, and both directions place work wrongly. A verdict now reads what a tool says about itself, not only how it exited. And `mesh-host inventory --json` printed text: the standard library stops parsing at the first non-flag argument, so the flag sat unread and the command exited 0 having ignored what was asked. The parser now takes the subcommand off the front, and a stray or mistyped argument is refused rather than dropped. Detection deliberately does NOT follow ADR 0008. That rule governs applying state, where a failed step means the machine is not what was asked for. A failed probe is a finding — "absent, because the probe failed" — and aborting would replace one legible absence with total ignorance of the rest. 25 tests: structure and logic with a fake runner, and the same detectors against this machine, because a test that fakes the system under detection asserts only that the fake behaves as expected. |