12 ms·

NetBSD Booting on the Apple M1

191 points by jmmv 5y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
So if it's booting from USB, does that imply that drivers for internal storage aren't there yet? Still excellent progress, of course:)
- brynet 5y ago
  OpenBSD has a WIP driver for the NVMe controller on the M1 chip, but AFAIK it's not working 100% reliably yet. https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/1c31dbaaf6000562ff37f72cda6e58b6cba38f3b https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/1c31dbaaf6000562ff37f7... https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/0ccab0b00204b8c23f121d4435f856775de77df6 https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/0ccab0b00204b8c23f121d... Patrick Wildt posted an early video of OpenBSD booting on the M1 Mac Mini back in January. A lot of the internal hardware is supported now as of 7.0-beta, such as the Broadcom Gigabit, Wi-Fi and USB. https://twitter.com/bluerise/status/1354216838406823936 https://twitter.com/bluerise/status/1354216838406823936
gjsman-1000 5y ago
When Linux and (fingers-crossed) BSD get full M1 support in the next year or two, these machines will be fantastic Linux and BSD computers. Not just from the unique hardware advantages (quiet operation, performance, etc.), but also from the upstream open-source kernel support and community documentation that is being written. And MacOS handles security on a partition level rather than on a system chip level, so I could have a Full Security MacOS install dual-booting with Linux/BSD someday. Exciting stuff.
- nix23 5y ago
  >MacOS handles security on a partition level rather than on a system chip level Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_T2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_T2 >>Controllers for microphones, camera, ambient light sensors and Touch ID, decoupling the main operating system's access to those.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    This is the M1, which does not quite work like the T2 does. The partition-level system means that you could have a Full Security MacOS install (with Secure Boot equivalent, System Integrity Protection, AMFI, etc. turned on), a Permissive Security MacOS install (no Secure Boot, SIP, or other measures, or some on and some off), and a Linux install all dual-booting on the same system. Unlike other architectures, there's no "this chip is in full security mode or no security mode," like unlocking the bootloader on Android, where the entire system is secure or insecure. On the M1, you can just have OS installs with different security.
    - pram 5y ago
      Very interesting info, thanks! Do you know if all the partitions would be encrypted via hardware, like the T2 does? (by that I mean even a Linux partition)
  - marcan_42 5y ago
    > Really? M1 macs are not T2 macs, nor does that have anything to do with the issue at hand. What the parent means is that it's not like Android where you "unlock your bootloader" and it's global and locks you out of certain features. The Apple Silicon secure boot mode is per OS install, so installing Linux does not taint your macOS security (i.e. you can still use iOS apps and watch Netflix in 4K on macOS).
- simonebrunozzi 5y ago
  I'd be willing to help a small company form around this, a-la System76. I think that Mac hardware is great, and a better price-to-quality ratio than any other laptop. A hardened Macbook would be fantastic for millions or knowledge workers. If you or someone else reading is seriously interested, let's have a chat. @HN_username at gmail
  - bionade24 5y ago
    Be sure that apple doesn't try to sue you for that in any way. Fighting against them on court could already be your end.
wiredfool 5y ago
Honestly, Today I'd be happy with Big Sur booting after a borked upgrade.
2bitencryption 5y ago
I understand that part of the "magic" behind the M1 is how it has some cores that are "performance" cores and other cores that are highly efficient "low power" cores. My question is, how much of the sublime performance of M1 Macs comes from MacOS being fine-tuned to take advantage of these two different type of cores? If you simply get the bare minimum of NetBSD booting on an M1, will it not achieve nearly the same performance unless the OS is fine-tuned to schedule properly across the "performance" cores and the "efficient low power" cores? I remember reading a recent article [0] about how future Intel chips plan to have similar "perf" and "low power" cores, and part of the presentation included someone from Microsoft saying they spent lots of time on the Windows team making sure Windows could schedule across these properly. So I wonder how much work it really takes. [0] https://www.pcworld.com/article/3629502/intels-alder-lake-what-you-need-to-know.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3629502/intels-alder-lake-wh...
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  If that is the case though, I wouldn't be surprised if newer Linux and BSD releases gain additional support for per-core-type performance scheduling and optimizations therein. It's not entirely new - Remember pretty much all ARM processors that aren't MCUs have big.LITTLE, but there is no doubt additional work to be done in the area.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    And Intel are going with it now also.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  ARM big.LITTLE[1] SoCs have been a thing for about a decade now, and most operating systems have schedulers that take advantage of each set of cores. macOS isn't doing anything special that Linux et al. aren't doing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
  - kbenson 5y ago
AceJohnny2 5y ago
I continue to be skeptical of all the "boots on Apple M1" efforts. Ultimately, I don't expect them to get much further than the "proof-of-concept" phase, as far as usability goes. Apple's chips are SoCs, and as such are extremely complicated systems. There are tons of parameters to make it work efficiently that either need to be carefully reverse-engineered, or out-of-reach entirely. Apple not only won't be any help, but will be actively hindering these efforts. For example, is anyone dealing with the performance modes of the chip, tuning them for performance-vs-dissipation? What about the DRAM interface? Alyssa Rosenzweigs effort on reverse-engineering the GPU is impressive and laudable, but it's just one component of the dozens or so IP blocks in the chip, each of which require that level of work. Being able to boot your OS on the CPU is like landing on the beaches of Brittania and calling it conquered. (I couldn't come up with a better analogy) I understand the appeal of the technical challenge, and that's awesome! But people should lower their expectations if they ever expect to run an open OS with the full power (or even significant fraction) of the hardware.
- rjsw 5y ago
  The Apple M1 is useful as a fast build machine even if the GPU is never usable by non-Apple operating systems.
  - AceJohnny2 5y ago
    Is it really the best option, performance-per-$?
  - amelius 5y ago
    Yeah, but one day Apple might pull the plug on non-Apple OSes. By then, all of you people who supported Apple will have to find another solution, which may not be as appealing since the competition is now far behind because of all your support of Apple hardware. Therefore it's better to switch earlier than sooner even if it means a small step back in performance.
    - rowanG077 5y ago
      You don't actually have to find another solution. The state it's in will continue working. The only thing apple can do is release a new piece of hardware that is locked down. But that could always happen regardless of vendor. Besides I don't think that's a serious risk with macs.
morpheos137 5y ago
Netbsd was interesting around 2000 when there were a bunch of living computer architectures. Now when there is just basically ARM, AMD64 and maybe IBM Power it makes less. As an avid Unix afficionado I have yet to install NetBSD. OpenBSD does whatever I need it to do. Maybe the ability of NetBSD to support commericial linux software makes it still relevant but I suspect that is rapidly going away with SystemD dependence. Does anybody know if you can run a SystemD layer on Netbsd? Otherwise the ability to support Alpha and Vax and M68k while interesting once is for all intents and purposes irrelevant today, at least for me. >NetBSD/next68k System Requirements and Supported Devices NetBSD/next68k 9.2 will run on the 25 MHz 68040-based NeXT workstations. The Turbo (33 MHz) models are not supported. The 68030 model is not supported. NetBSD/next68k 9.2 does not have any local disk support, so you must netboot and run diskless. >The minimum configuration requires 4 MB of RAM and a network server capable of netbooting NetBSD/next68k. Serial consoles are poorly supported by the hardware, see the FAQ for help... In 2021 people spent developer hours testing NetBSD 9.2 on the NeXT cube...like what the www started on before the USSR fell. Anyway I guess everybody needs their hobbies...
- sitzkrieg 5y ago
  netbsd is pure pain compared to openbsd, dont bother
  - crasla 5y ago
    What do you mean by pure pain? Netbsd and both openbsd are great operating systems. Neither one of them is bad,they just work differently and have other goals. Openbsd is more security minded and netbsd works on more computers/architectures
- mlyle 5y ago
  > In 2021 people spent developer hours testing NetBSD 9.2 on the NeXT cube...like what the www started on before the USSR fell. Anyway I guess everybody needs their hobbies... Do you see no utility in this? I think we should keep old machines alive-- both their original operating system / environment and also something like NetBSD which is quasi-supported and quasi-modern have their roles. Preserving the history of it all is important.
black_puppydog 5y ago
I am impressed by the determination of the engineers doing this, but I for one will stick to my MNT Reform once it arrives. Here's the current hands-on thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342151 I won't lie, I'll be looking forward to a SoC upgrade on that, but I'm just done with throwing $$$ at companies that sit on mountains of cash yet can't be arsed to dump some info on how to even use their hardware. Money and work needs to go into HW support where it is easier to get to the full potential of the device, not burn money and brain cycles on giving the richest company in the field à lift. Apple needs to lose mindshare. They have never cared about FLOSS and they never will, just accept that and move on to more open platforms or things will never change.

191 points by jmmv 5y ago

So if it's booting from USB, does that imply that drivers for internal storage aren't there yet? Still excellent progress, of course:)

brynet 5y ago
OpenBSD has a WIP driver for the NVMe controller on the M1 chip, but AFAIK it's not working 100% reliably yet. https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/1c31dbaaf6000562ff37f72cda6e58b6cba38f3b https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/1c31dbaaf6000562ff37f7... https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/0ccab0b00204b8c23f121d4435f856775de77df6 https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/0ccab0b00204b8c23f121d... Patrick Wildt posted an early video of OpenBSD booting on the M1 Mac Mini back in January. A lot of the internal hardware is supported now as of 7.0-beta, such as the Broadcom Gigabit, Wi-Fi and USB. https://twitter.com/bluerise/status/1354216838406823936 https://twitter.com/bluerise/status/1354216838406823936

gjsman-1000 5y ago

When Linux and (fingers-crossed) BSD get full M1 support in the next year or two, these machines will be fantastic Linux and BSD computers. Not just from the unique hardware advantages (quiet operation, performance, etc.), but also from the upstream open-source kernel support and community documentation that is being written. And MacOS handles security on a partition level rather than on a system chip level, so I could have a Full Security MacOS install dual-booting with Linux/BSD someday. Exciting stuff.

nix23 5y ago
>MacOS handles security on a partition level rather than on a system chip level Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_T2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_T2 >>Controllers for microphones, camera, ambient light sensors and Touch ID, decoupling the main operating system's access to those.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  This is the M1, which does not quite work like the T2 does. The partition-level system means that you could have a Full Security MacOS install (with Secure Boot equivalent, System Integrity Protection, AMFI, etc. turned on), a Permissive Security MacOS install (no Secure Boot, SIP, or other measures, or some on and some off), and a Linux install all dual-booting on the same system. Unlike other architectures, there's no "this chip is in full security mode or no security mode," like unlocking the bootloader on Android, where the entire system is secure or insecure. On the M1, you can just have OS installs with different security.
  - pram 5y ago
    Very interesting info, thanks! Do you know if all the partitions would be encrypted via hardware, like the T2 does? (by that I mean even a Linux partition)
- marcan_42 5y ago
  > Really? M1 macs are not T2 macs, nor does that have anything to do with the issue at hand. What the parent means is that it's not like Android where you "unlock your bootloader" and it's global and locks you out of certain features. The Apple Silicon secure boot mode is per OS install, so installing Linux does not taint your macOS security (i.e. you can still use iOS apps and watch Netflix in 4K on macOS).
simonebrunozzi 5y ago
I'd be willing to help a small company form around this, a-la System76. I think that Mac hardware is great, and a better price-to-quality ratio than any other laptop. A hardened Macbook would be fantastic for millions or knowledge workers. If you or someone else reading is seriously interested, let's have a chat. @HN_username at gmail
- bionade24 5y ago
  Be sure that apple doesn't try to sue you for that in any way. Fighting against them on court could already be your end.

wiredfool 5y ago

Honestly, Today I'd be happy with Big Sur booting after a borked upgrade.

2bitencryption 5y ago

I understand that part of the "magic" behind the M1 is how it has some cores that are "performance" cores and other cores that are highly efficient "low power" cores. My question is, how much of the sublime performance of M1 Macs comes from MacOS being fine-tuned to take advantage of these two different type of cores? If you simply get the bare minimum of NetBSD booting on an M1, will it not achieve nearly the same performance unless the OS is fine-tuned to schedule properly across the "performance" cores and the "efficient low power" cores? I remember reading a recent article [0] about how future Intel chips plan to have similar "perf" and "low power" cores, and part of the presentation included someone from Microsoft saying they spent lots of time on the Windows team making sure Windows could schedule across these properly. So I wonder how much work it really takes. [0] https://www.pcworld.com/article/3629502/intels-alder-lake-what-you-need-to-know.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3629502/intels-alder-lake-wh...

gjsman-1000 5y ago
If that is the case though, I wouldn't be surprised if newer Linux and BSD releases gain additional support for per-core-type performance scheduling and optimizations therein. It's not entirely new - Remember pretty much all ARM processors that aren't MCUs have big.LITTLE, but there is no doubt additional work to be done in the area.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  And Intel are going with it now also.
heavyset_go 5y ago
ARM big.LITTLE[1] SoCs have been a thing for about a decade now, and most operating systems have schedulers that take advantage of each set of cores. macOS isn't doing anything special that Linux et al. aren't doing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
- kbenson 5y ago

AceJohnny2 5y ago

I continue to be skeptical of all the "boots on Apple M1" efforts. Ultimately, I don't expect them to get much further than the "proof-of-concept" phase, as far as usability goes. Apple's chips are SoCs, and as such are extremely complicated systems. There are tons of parameters to make it work efficiently that either need to be carefully reverse-engineered, or out-of-reach entirely. Apple not only won't be any help, but will be actively hindering these efforts. For example, is anyone dealing with the performance modes of the chip, tuning them for performance-vs-dissipation? What about the DRAM interface? Alyssa Rosenzweigs effort on reverse-engineering the GPU is impressive and laudable, but it's just one component of the dozens or so IP blocks in the chip, each of which require that level of work. Being able to boot your OS on the CPU is like landing on the beaches of Brittania and calling it conquered. (I couldn't come up with a better analogy) I understand the appeal of the technical challenge, and that's awesome! But people should lower their expectations if they ever expect to run an open OS with the full power (or even significant fraction) of the hardware.

rjsw 5y ago
The Apple M1 is useful as a fast build machine even if the GPU is never usable by non-Apple operating systems.
- AceJohnny2 5y ago
  Is it really the best option, performance-per-$?
- amelius 5y ago
  Yeah, but one day Apple might pull the plug on non-Apple OSes. By then, all of you people who supported Apple will have to find another solution, which may not be as appealing since the competition is now far behind because of all your support of Apple hardware. Therefore it's better to switch earlier than sooner even if it means a small step back in performance.
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    You don't actually have to find another solution. The state it's in will continue working. The only thing apple can do is release a new piece of hardware that is locked down. But that could always happen regardless of vendor. Besides I don't think that's a serious risk with macs.

morpheos137 5y ago

Netbsd was interesting around 2000 when there were a bunch of living computer architectures. Now when there is just basically ARM, AMD64 and maybe IBM Power it makes less. As an avid Unix afficionado I have yet to install NetBSD. OpenBSD does whatever I need it to do. Maybe the ability of NetBSD to support commericial linux software makes it still relevant but I suspect that is rapidly going away with SystemD dependence. Does anybody know if you can run a SystemD layer on Netbsd? Otherwise the ability to support Alpha and Vax and M68k while interesting once is for all intents and purposes irrelevant today, at least for me. >NetBSD/next68k System Requirements and Supported Devices NetBSD/next68k 9.2 will run on the 25 MHz 68040-based NeXT workstations. The Turbo (33 MHz) models are not supported. The 68030 model is not supported. NetBSD/next68k 9.2 does not have any local disk support, so you must netboot and run diskless. >The minimum configuration requires 4 MB of RAM and a network server capable of netbooting NetBSD/next68k. Serial consoles are poorly supported by the hardware, see the FAQ for help... In 2021 people spent developer hours testing NetBSD 9.2 on the NeXT cube...like what the www started on before the USSR fell. Anyway I guess everybody needs their hobbies...

sitzkrieg 5y ago
netbsd is pure pain compared to openbsd, dont bother
- crasla 5y ago
  What do you mean by pure pain? Netbsd and both openbsd are great operating systems. Neither one of them is bad,they just work differently and have other goals. Openbsd is more security minded and netbsd works on more computers/architectures
mlyle 5y ago
> In 2021 people spent developer hours testing NetBSD 9.2 on the NeXT cube...like what the www started on before the USSR fell. Anyway I guess everybody needs their hobbies... Do you see no utility in this? I think we should keep old machines alive-- both their original operating system / environment and also something like NetBSD which is quasi-supported and quasi-modern have their roles. Preserving the history of it all is important.

black_puppydog 5y ago

I am impressed by the determination of the engineers doing this, but I for one will stick to my MNT Reform once it arrives. Here's the current hands-on thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342151 I won't lie, I'll be looking forward to a SoC upgrade on that, but I'm just done with throwing $$$ at companies that sit on mountains of cash yet can't be arsed to dump some info on how to even use their hardware. Money and work needs to go into HW support where it is easier to get to the full potential of the device, not burn money and brain cycles on giving the richest company in the field à lift. Apple needs to lose mindshare. They have never cared about FLOSS and they never will, just accept that and move on to more open platforms or things will never change.