Virtualization for Embedded Systems the How and Why of Small-Device Hypervisors M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Real-Time, Safe and Certified OS
Real-Time, Safe and Certified OS Roman Kapl <[email protected]> drivers, customer projects, development Tomas Martinec <[email protected]> testing and certification © SYSGO AG · INTERNAL 1 Introduction • PikeOS – real-time, safety certified OS • Desktop and Server vs. • Embedded • Real-Time • Safety-Critical • Certified • Differences • Scheduling • Resource management • Features • Development © SYSGO AG · INTERNAL 2 Certification • Testing • Analysis • Lot of time • Even more paper • Required for safety-critical systems • Trains • Airplanes © SYSGO AG · INTERNAL 3 PikeOS • Embedded, real-time, certified OS • ~150 people (not just engineers) • Rail • Avionics • Space • This presentation is not about PikeOS specifically © SYSGO AG · INTERNAL 4 PikeOS technical • Microkernel • Inspired by L4 • Memory protection (MMU) • More complex than FreeRTOS • Virtualization hypervisor • X86, ARM, SPARC, PowerPC • Eclipse IDE for development © SYSGO AG · INTERNAL 5 Personalities • General • POSIX • Linux • Domain specific • ARINC653 • PikeOS native • Other • Ada, RT JAVA, AUTOSAR, ITRON, RTEMS © SYSGO AG · INTERNAL 6 PikeOS Architecture App. App. App. App. App. App. Volume Syste m Provider Partition PikeOS Para-Virtualized HW Virtualized File System (Native, POSIX, Guest OS PikeOS Native ARINC653, ...) Guest OS Linux, Android Linux, Android Device Driver User Space / Partitions Syste m PikeOS System Software ExtensionSyste m Extension PikeOS Microkernel Kernel Space / Hypervisor Architecture Platform Kernel Level Support Package Support Package Driver SoC / -
UG1046 Ultrafast Embedded Design Methodology Guide
UltraFast Embedded Design Methodology Guide UG1046 (v2.3) April 20, 2018 Revision History The following table shows the revision history for this document. Date Version Revision 04/20/2018 2.3 • Added a note in the Overview section of Chapter 5. • Replaced BFM terminology with VIP across the user guide. 07/27/2017 2.2 • Vivado IDE updates and minor editorial changes. 04/22/2015 2.1 • Added Embedded Design Methodology Checklist. • Added Accessing Documentation and Training. 03/26/2015 2.0 • Added SDSoC Environment. • Added Related Design Hubs. 10/20/2014 1.1 • Removed outdated information. •In System Level Considerations, added information to the following sections: ° Performance ° Clocking and Reset 10/08/2014 1.0 Initial Release of document. UltraFast Embedded Design Methodology Guide Send Feedback 2 UG1046 (v2.3) April 20, 2018 www.xilinx.com Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Embedded Design Methodology Checklist. 9 Accessing Documentation and Training . 10 Chapter 2: System Level Considerations Performance. 13 Power Consumption . 18 Clocking and Reset. 36 Interrupts . 41 Embedded Device Security . 45 Profiling and Partitioning . 51 Chapter 3: Hardware Design Considerations Configuration and Boot Devices . 63 Memory Interfaces . 69 Peripherals . 76 Designing IP Blocks . 94 Hardware Performance Considerations . 102 Dataflow . 108 PL Clocking Methodology . 112 ACP and Cache Coherency. 116 PL High-Performance Port Access. 120 System Management Hardware Assistance. 124 Managing Hardware Reconfiguration . 127 GPs and Direct PL Access from APU . 133 Chapter 4: Software Design Considerations Processor Configuration . 137 OS and RTOS Choices . 142 Libraries and Middleware . 152 Boot Loaders . 156 Software Development Tools . 162 UltraFast Embedded Design Methodology GuideSend Feedback 3 UG1046 (v2.3) April 20, 2018 www.xilinx.com Chapter 5: Hardware Design Flow Overview . -
Sistemi Operativi Real-Time Marco Cesati Lezione R13 Sistemi Operativi Real-Time – II Schema Della Lezione
Sistemi operativi real-time Marco Cesati Lezione R13 Sistemi operativi real-time – II Schema della lezione Caratteristiche comuni VxWorks LynxOS Sistemi embedded e real-time QNX eCos Windows Linux come RTOS 15 gennaio 2013 Marco Cesati Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ingegneria Informatica Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata SERT’13 R13.1 Sistemi operativi Di cosa parliamo in questa lezione? real-time Marco Cesati In questa lezione descriviamo brevemente alcuni dei più diffusi sistemi operativi real-time Schema della lezione Caratteristiche comuni VxWorks LynxOS 1 Caratteristiche comuni degli RTOS QNX 2 VxWorks eCos 3 LynxOS Windows Linux come RTOS 4 QNX Neutrino 5 eCos 6 Windows Embedded CE 7 Linux come RTOS SERT’13 R13.2 Sistemi operativi Caratteristiche comuni dei principali RTOS real-time Marco Cesati Corrispondenza agli standard: generalmente le API sono proprietarie, ma gli RTOS offrono anche compatibilità (compliancy) o conformità (conformancy) allo standard Real-Time POSIX Modularità e Scalabilità: il kernel ha una dimensione Schema della lezione Caratteristiche comuni (footprint) ridotta e le sue funzionalità sono configurabili VxWorks Dimensione del codice: spesso basati su microkernel LynxOS QNX Velocità e Efficienza: basso overhead per cambi di eCos contesto, latenza delle interruzioni e primitive di Windows sincronizzazione Linux come RTOS Porzioni di codice non interrompibile: generalmente molto corte e di durata predicibile Gestione delle interruzioni “separata”: interrupt handler corto e predicibile, ISR lunga -
Symbian OS Platform Security Model
THE SYMBIAN OS BECAME FULLY OPEN sourced in February 2010, which opens even BO LI, ELENA RESHETOVA, AND T U O M A S A U R A more possibilities for application develop- ers to understand and analyze its security Symbian OS solution. We present a short introduction to the software features of Symbian plat- platform form security: three trust tiers, capability model, data caging, and the Symbian signed security model process. We also try to compare the security Bo Li is a second-year student in the master’s solution with the classical design principles program in security and mobile computing in this area, as well as briefly discuss gen- at Aalto University, Finland. He got his bach- elor’s degree in communications engineering eral design challenges and potential weak- in 2008 from Fudan University, China. nesses. [email protected] Elena Reshetova is a senior security engineer Introduction at Nokia, as well as a postgraduate student at Aalto University. She is interested in With the development of mobile devices and mo- various research areas related to platform bile computers, more and more people rely strongly security, security aspects of networking, and on them. People use mobile devices and mobile cryptography. computers to arrange their schedules, contact each [email protected] other, process emails, and share rich media con- tent. People believe it is safe to do so because it Tuomas Aura is a professor at Aalto Uni- versity, Finland. His research interests are feels secure just knowing it is “right there with security and privacy in communications you” [8]. -
Performance Study of Real-Time Operating Systems for Internet Of
IET Software Research Article ISSN 1751-8806 Performance study of real-time operating Received on 11th April 2017 Revised 13th December 2017 systems for internet of things devices Accepted on 13th January 2018 E-First on 16th February 2018 doi: 10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0048 www.ietdl.org Rafael Raymundo Belleza1 , Edison Pignaton de Freitas1 1Institute of Informatics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, CP 15064, Porto Alegre CEP: 91501-970, Brazil E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The development of constrained devices for the internet of things (IoT) presents lots of challenges to software developers who build applications on top of these devices. Many applications in this domain have severe non-functional requirements related to timing properties, which are important concerns that have to be handled. By using real-time operating systems (RTOSs), developers have greater productivity, as they provide native support for real-time properties handling. Some of the key points in the software development for IoT in these constrained devices, like task synchronisation and network communications, are already solved by this provided real-time support. However, different RTOSs offer different degrees of support to the different demanded real-time properties. Observing this aspect, this study presents a set of benchmark tests on the selected open source and proprietary RTOSs focused on the IoT. The benchmark results show that there is no clear winner, as each RTOS performs well at least on some criteria, but general conclusions can be drawn on the suitability of each of them according to their performance evaluation in the obtained results. -
The OKL4 Microvisor: Convergence Point of Microkernels and Hypervisors
The OKL4 Microvisor: Convergence Point of Microkernels and Hypervisors Gernot Heiser, Ben Leslie Open Kernel Labs and NICTA and UNSW Sydney, Australia ok-labs.com ©2010 Open Kernel Labs and NICTA. All rights reserved. Microkernels vs Hypervisors > Hypervisors = “microkernels done right?” [Hand et al, HotOS ‘05] • Talks about “liability inversion”, “IPC irrelevance” … > What’s the difference anyway? ok-labs.com ©2010 Open Kernel Labs and NICTA. All rights reserved. 2 What are Hypervisors? > Hypervisor = “virtual machine monitor” • Designed to multiplex multiple virtual machines on single physical machine VM1 VM2 Apps Apps AppsApps AppsApps OS OS Hypervisor > Invented in ‘60s to time-share with single-user OSes > Re-discovered in ‘00s to work around broken OS resource management ok-labs.com ©2010 Open Kernel Labs and NICTA. All rights reserved. 3 What are Microkernels? > Designed to minimise kernel code • Remove policy, services, retain mechanisms • Run OS services in user-mode • Software-engineering and dependability reasons • L4: ≈ 10 kLOC, Xen ≈ 100 kLOC, Linux: ≈ 10,000 kLOC ServersServers ServersServers Apps Servers Device AppsApps Drivers Microkernel > IPC performance critical (highly optimised) • Achieved by API simplicity, cache-friendly implementation > Invented 1970 [Brinch Hansen], popularised late ‘80s (Mach, Chorus) ok-labs.com ©2010 Open Kernel Labs and NICTA. All rights reserved. 4 What’s the Difference? > Both contain all code executing at highest privilege level • Although hypervisor may contain user-mode code as well > Both need to abstract hardware resources • Hypervisor: abstraction closely models hardware • Microkernel: abstraction designed to support wide range of systems > What must be abstracted? • Memory • CPU • I/O • Communication ok-labs.com ©2010 Open Kernel Labs and NICTA. -
Security Target Pikeos Separation Kernel V4.2.2
Security Target PikeOS Separation Kernel v4.2.2 Document ID Revision DOORS Baseline Date State 00101-8000-ST 20.6 N.A. 2018-10-10 App Author: Dominic Eschweiler SYSGO AG Am Pfaffenstein 14, D-55270 Klein-Winternheim Notice: The contents of this document are proprietary to SYSGO AG and shall not be disclosed, disseminated, copied, or used except for purposes expressly authorized in writing by SYSGO AG. Doc. ID: 00101-8000-ST Revision: 20.6 This page intentionally left blank Copyright 2018 Page 2 of 47 All rights reserved. SYSGO AG Doc. ID: 00101-8000-ST Revision: 20.6 This page intentionally left blank Copyright 2018 Page 3 of 47 All rights reserved. SYSGO AG Doc. ID: 00101-8000-ST Revision: 20.6 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose of this Document ........................................................................................... 6 1.2 Document References ................................................................................................ 6 1.2.1 Applicable Documents......................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Referenced Documents ....................................................................................... 6 1.3 Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... 6 1.4 Terms and Definitions................................................................................................ -
Symbian Foundation Press Conference
Symbian Foundation Press conference M/C – Merran Wrigley Exciting Internet experiences for the aspirations of billions 2 © 2008 Symbian Foundation Mobile software set free Symbian Foundation Kai Öistämö Executive Vice President, Nokia Shared vision for an unparalleled open mobile software platform 4 © 2008 Symbian Foundation That unites Symbian OS, S60, UIQ and MOAP(S) 5 © 2008 Symbian Foundation Creating the most proven, open, complete mobile software platform 6 © 2008 Symbian Foundation With over 200 million devices already shipped 7 © 2008 Symbian Foundation For free. 8 © 2008 Symbian Foundation Creating one platform, royalty-free Foundation Differentiated Member experience MOAP(S) 9 © 2008 Symbian Foundation Creating one platform, royalty-free Foundation Differentiated Member experience Symbian Foundation Platform Applications suite Runtimes UI framework Middleware Operating system Tools & SDK 10 © 2008 Symbian Foundation The first step to our goal • Acquiring Symbian Ltd • Closing expected in Q4 2008 • Symbian Ltd to be part of Nokia • Nokia will contribute Symbian OS and S60 to Symbian Foundation 11 © 2008 Symbian Foundation Fulfilling the Symbian mission Symbian Foundation Nigel Clifford CEO, Symbian Symbian Ltd Mission To become the most widely used software platform on the planet 13 © 2008 Symbian Foundation The leading global open platform 12% Symbian Linux 11% Microsoft RIM 60% Apple 11% Other Source Canalys – Cumulative 4% 12 month period to Q1 2008 2% 14 © 2008 Symbian Foundation The choice for the top vendors Samsung MOTO -
A Lightweight Virtualization Layer with Hardware-Assistance for Embedded Systems
PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL FACULTY OF INFORMATICS COMPUTER SCIENCE GRADUATE PROGRAM A LIGHTWEIGHT VIRTUALIZATION LAYER WITH HARDWARE-ASSISTANCE FOR EMBEDDED SYSTEMS CARLOS ROBERTO MORATELLI Dissertation submitted to the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ph. D. in Computer Science. Advisor: Prof. Fabiano Hessel Porto Alegre 2016 To my family and friends. “I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.” (Linus Torvalds) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who helped me throughout all my Ph.D. years and made this dissertation possible. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Prof. Fabiano Passuelo Hessel, who has given me the opportunity to undertake a Ph.D. and provided me invaluable guidance and support in my Ph.D. and in my academic life in general. Thank you to all the Ph.D. committee members – Prof. Carlos Eduardo Pereira (dissertation proposal), Prof. Rodolfo Jardim de Azevedo, Prof. Rômulo Silva de Oliveira and Prof. Tiago Ferreto - for the time invested and for the valuable feedback provided.Thank you Dr. Luca Carloni and the other SLD team members at the Columbia University in the City of New York for receiving me and giving me the opportunity to work with them during my ‘sandwich’ research internship. Eu gostaria de agraceder minha esposa, Ana Claudia, por ter estado ao meu lado durante todo o meu período de doutorado. O seu apoio e compreensão foram e continuam sendo muito importantes para mim. -
Operating System Components for an Embedded Linux System
INSTITUTEFORREAL-TIMECOMPUTERSYSTEMS TECHNISCHEUNIVERSITATM¨ UNCHEN¨ PROFESSOR G. F ARBER¨ Operating System Components for an Embedded Linux System Martin Hintermann Studienarbeit ii Operating System Components for an Embedded Linux System Studienarbeit Executed at the Institute for Real-Time Computer Systems Technische Universitat¨ Munchen¨ Prof. Dr.-Ing. Georg Farber¨ Advisor: Prof.Dr.rer.nat.habil. Thomas Braunl¨ Author: Martin Hintermann Kirchberg 34 82069 Hohenschaftlarn¨ Submitted in February 2007 iii Acknowledgements At first, i would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Thomas Braunl¨ for giving me the opportunity to take part at a really interesting project. Many thanks to Thomas Sommer, my project partner, for his contribution to our good work. I also want to thank also Bernard Blackham for his assistance by email and phone at any time. In my opinion, it was a great cooperation of all persons taking part in this project. Abstract Embedded systems can be found in more and more devices. Linux as a free operating system is also becoming more and more important in embedded applications. Linux even replaces other operating systems in certain areas (e.g. mobile phones). This thesis deals with the employment of Linux in embedded systems. Various architectures of embedded systems are introduced and the characteristics of common operating systems for these devices are reviewed. The architecture of Linux is examined by looking at the particular components such as kernel, standard C libraries and POSIX tools for embedded systems. Furthermore, there is a survey of real-time extensions for the Linux kernel. The thesis also treats software development for embedded Linux ranging from the prerequi- sites for compiling software to the debugging of binaries. -
Us 2019 / 0319868 A1
US 20190319868A1 ( 19) United States (12 ) Patent Application Publication ( 10) Pub . No. : US 2019 /0319868 A1 Svennebring et al. ( 43 ) Pub . Date : Oct. 17 , 2019 ( 54 ) LINK PERFORMANCE PREDICTION (52 ) U . S . CI. TECHNOLOGIES CPC .. .. H04L 43/ 0882 (2013 . 01 ); H04W 24 /08 ( 2013 . 01 ) (71 ) Applicant : Intel Corporation , Santa Clara , CA (57 ) ABSTRACT (US ) Various systems and methods for determining and commu nicating Link Performance Predictions (LPPs ), such as in ( 72 ) Inventors : Jonas Svennebring , Sollentuna (SE ) ; connection with management of radio communication links, Antony Vance Jeyaraj, Bengaluru ( IN ) are discussed herein . The LPPs are predictions of future network behaviors /metrics ( e . g . , bandwidth , latency , capac (21 ) Appl . No. : 16 /452 , 352 ity , coverage holes , etc . ) . The LPPs are communicated to applications and /or network infrastructure, which allows the applications/ infrastructure to make operational decisions for ( 22 ) Filed : Jun . 25 , 2019 improved signaling / link resource utilization . In embodi ments , the link performance analysis is divided into multiple layers that determine their own link performance metrics, Publication Classification which are then fused together to make an LPP. Each layer (51 ) Int . Cl. runs different algorithms, and provides respective results to H04L 12 / 26 ( 2006 .01 ) an LPP layer /engine that fuses the results together to obtain H04W 24 / 08 (2006 .01 ) the LPP . Other embodiments are described and / or claimed . 700 Spatio - Temporal History Data Tx1 : C1 TIDE _ 1, DE _ 2 . .. Txt : C2 T2 DE _ 1 , DE _ 2 , . .. win Txs : C3 122 T : DE _ 1, DE _ 2 , .. TN DE _ 1 , DE _ 2 .. TxN : CN CELL LOAD MODEL 710 Real- Time Data 744 704 Patent Application Publication Oct. -
Sel4: Formal Verification of an Operating-System Kernel
seL4: Formal Verification of an Operating-System Kernel Gerwin Klein1;2, June Andronick1;2, Kevin Elphinstone1;2, Gernot Heiser1;2;3 1 1 1;2 1;2 David Cock , Philip Derrin ∗, Dhammika Elkaduwe ,z Kai Engelhardt 1;2 1;4 1 1;2 1;2 Rafal Kolanski , Michael Norrish , Thomas Sewell , Harvey Tuch y, Simon Winwood 1 NICTA, 2 UNSW, 3 Open Kernel Labs, 4 ANU [email protected] ABSTRACT We report on the formal, machine-checked verification of the seL4 microkernel from an abstract specification down to its C implementation. We assume correctness of compiler, assembly code, hardware, and boot code. seL4 is a third-generation microkernel of L4 provenance, comprising 8,700 lines of C and 600 lines of assembler. Its performance is comparable to other high-performance L4 kernels. We prove that the implementation always strictly follows our high-level abstract specification of kernel behaviour. This encompasses traditional design and implementation safety properties such as that the kernel will never crash, and it will never perform an unsafe operation. It also implies much more: we can predict precisely how the kernel will behave in every possible situation. 1. INTRODUCTION Almost every paper on formal verification starts with the observation that software complexity is increasing, that this Figure 1: Call graph of the seL4 microkernel. Ver- leads to errors, and that this is a problem for mission and tices represent functions, and edges invocations. safety critical software. We agree, as do most. Here, we report on the full formal verification of a critical system from a high-level model down to very low-level C kernel, and every single bug can potentially cause arbitrary code.