Commit Graph
6 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
jschoubben cb5e137297 bootstrap: read the image id back from the runtime, never predict it
An image id does not survive `docker save` -> transfer -> `docker load`. The id is
the digest of the image's *configuration*, and a runtime rewrites that
configuration as it loads: a newer Docker saves in one format, an older one stores
it in another. Same layers, same program, different name. Measured on a live raise:

  saved on the workstation  sha256:b86bb81ca2f9691f24f4725f50962d1e49c98c5ffe211113241243d42d18ceea
  loaded on the machine     sha256:2dc219046c73702fc640317f0342a28ec962ef1e9ef547b2f02861c508ca78fb

`internal/image`.ID read the id out of the carried tar and its comment said that
was the id the runtime would assign. That is true on the machine the image was
built on and false on every machine it is carried to — which is every machine this
program exists for. The installer then either stopped at step 2 refusing the
runtime's answer, or would have written a bundle naming an image the machine does
not hold; and nothing serves an image named by the digest of its own configuration,
which is the whole point of naming one that way, so the apply would have died
inside a pull that cannot succeed. The lab hit this.

So the image is identified by its TAG, which is ordinary metadata the tar carries
through unchanged. The runtime is asked what that tag resolves to before the load
(already held, nothing to do) and again after (this is what the bundle names). The
tag never reaches the bundle — a pinned bundle may not rely on one, ADR 0006 — it
is how the id is obtained, not what is written down.

  - image.ID becomes image.ArchiveID, and says plainly that it is a fact about the
    file and not a prediction about any machine. It is kept for reports, and printed
    beside the runtime's answer whenever the two differ.
  - Idempotence is decided from what the runtime holds under the tag, not from a
    predicted id, which cannot answer the question at all here.
  - An untagged archive is refused, in preflight and again at the load: there would
    be no portable name to ask about, and the only thing left is scraping a sentence
    `docker load` writes for a person. `make bootstrap` refuses an id or an untagged
    image, so it is caught in front of whoever can fix it.
  - A dry run cannot know the id and says so rather than pretending. Run refuses to
    write a bundle carrying an unconfirmed id at all.

Tests: the injected Runner now answers with an id DIFFERING from the tar's, and the
runtime's answer is what must be used. The test that refused a differing id encoded
the mistake and is replaced by one refusing an answer that is not an id at all.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-11 00:12:36 +02:00
jschoubben 0a88dc1f9d bootstrap: follow the mount from the variable to the secret
The catalogue's mesh-control manifest landed while this was being written, and it
does what the ordinary case does: it keeps its secrets under /var/lib/mesh and
mounts them into the container at /run/secrets, so MESH_STORE_INVENTORY_FILE names
a path that no own-secret writes. Matching on the path alone found nothing and
would have refused a correct manifest.

So the lookup follows the volumes. It also reads the other shape the manifest uses
— `VAR=${secret:name}` inside the environment file a container reads — which is
how a value that is not a path gets in at all, and which is where the broker's two
credentials live.

That generalises what is delivered: every variable the module fills from a secret
is looked up in the substrate's control plane. What the substrate names is accepted
through `secret accept`; what it does not is left for the mesh to generate, and
said so. A store connection the substrate does not name stays an error — a control
plane that cannot open a context is not one.

Checked against the real manifest (mesh-catalog feat/control-plane-module): five
variables resolve, the placeholder pins in one place, and the container it waits
for is `mesh-control`.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-11 00:03:14 +02:00
jschoubben f534cf8b42 bootstrap: the rest of the pivot — enrol, registry, publish, reinstall, retire
Steps 6 to 10, which turn a substrate into a mesh that can maintain itself
(novox/hq ADR 0067).

 6 enrol      a node record, a token, `mesh-host enrol`, and the host agent
              running. Proved by the mesh having HEARD from the node, not by a
              process existing: a host that cannot reach the broker looks exactly
              like a successful install until the first push applies nothing.
 7 registry   the module that gives this mesh an image store, registered from a
              --catalog checkout, assigned and pushed. Its image is upstream and
              never built (04-ISSUES/029) — a placeholder digest there is refused.
              Verified by asking `/v2/`, because a container that is up is not a
              registry that serves.
 8 publish    the carried image pushed into that registry, which assigns it the
              first manifest digest it has ever had. This is the hinge: without
              it the mesh works and can never upgrade itself.
 9 control    the control plane registered as an ordinary module pinned to that
              digest, with the substrate's own store connections delivered
              through `secret accept` — read out of the bundle that made them,
              because the mesh cannot invent a credential that predates it.
10 retire     the temporary control plane dropped from the bundle and removed by
              the host's ordinary removal pass.

Every step asks before it acts and reports "already done". No step leaves the
machine without a control plane: steps 9 and 10 overlap deliberately, and two
stateless control planes are untidy rather than broken.

mesh-control's `internal/builder`.PublishImage is mirrored rather than imported —
tier 0 depends on nothing that must be installed first — with one correction: the
digest is chosen from RepoDigests by repository instead of taken as element zero,
so an image pushed to two registries cannot silently pin this mesh to the wrong
one.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-10 23:59:57 +02:00
jschoubben af953dbb0d bootstrap: the temporary control plane gets a temporary name
The substrate raises a control plane and a module will later declare one. If both
are called `mesh-control` then for one moment two owners hold one container, and
the host — which tracks what it owns — has no way to stop owning something without
destroying it. That looked like a missing mechanism.

It is a naming problem. The substrate's container becomes `temp-mesh-control` and
the module's keeps the plain name: two containers, two owners, nothing to hand
over. Dropping the temporary one from the bundle at the end is then destruction by
omission, which is what the host already does to anything that leaves a
declaration — and the right end for something named "temp" (novox/hq ADR 0067).

The rename is textual and matches the QUOTED name, so the `mesh-control` inside
the image reference is not caught by it. Read back afterwards: the produced bundle
must call it the temporary name, and no other container may have been renamed.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-10 23:59:32 +02:00
jschoubben 9c9e02ba1d mesh-bootstrap: drop an unread parameter
A parameter nothing reads is a claim the function makes about what it needs, and
this one was wrong.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-10 23:18:07 +02:00
jschoubben b82ab95f74 mesh-bootstrap: the first-node procedure, as a program rather than a test
The only complete written-down copy of how a mesh is stood up was an integration
test in the lab. That is why every bootstrap gap kept being found late: an install
procedure that lives as a test fixture is exercised by whoever writes tests, never
by whoever installs. This is that procedure.

A separate binary, not a mesh-host subcommand. mesh-host says of itself that it
connects to nothing and listens on nothing and that what it applies comes from a
file, and that sentence is what makes an always-running root daemon auditable. An
installer loads images and interrogates a control plane. Same tier, different
program.

The control plane's image is carried, not built and not fetched. The forge that
holds its source runs on the mesh, so a bootstrap that had to fetch it would need
a mesh in order to raise one. Embedding breaks that cycle the way the carried
bundle breaks "copy it onto a machine and run it". The image id is read out of the
saved tar before the runtime is asked anything, which is what makes the load
idempotent: the installer can ask whether the machine already holds exactly this.

Five steps, each idempotent and each saying whether it found or changed something,
because this is run over and over by somebody getting a machine working. It stops
at a running substrate with a control plane that replies — enrolment, the module
catalogue and assignment are the next stage and are deliberately absent.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
2026-09-10 23:17:30 +02:00