I compiled 32-bit kernel on a 64-bit ubuntu and installed it. But when I tried to boot from it , it gave me an error:
Failed to execute /init
Kernel panic - not syncing: No init found
And also the Caps Lock light kept on blinking.
But when I tried to boot from the original 64-bit kernel it booted successfully. Please tell me reason behind this and a solution to this.
You can't do much with just a kernel. As soon as the kernel is done booting, it calls an external process (called init) which begins starting other services and processes from user space, in order to arrive at a functional system. This includes mounting filesystems, configuring some hot-pluggable devices, launching network services, and, of course, providing a login screen.
A 64-bit operating system can run both 64-bit and 32-bit binaries. A 32-bit operating system can only run 32-bit binaries. And it appears that your system (including init) is a 64-bit system. Therefore, your 32-bit kernel will be unable to do anything after booting, since all the necessary system utilities are compiled in 64-bit mode.
I can't think of any reason one would want to "downgrade" to a 32-bit kernel on a 64-bit distribution, even if it were possible.
Related
Hi everyone :) am a newbie to develop applications for Mac. My questions are regading to different OS architectures in Mac and am greatly confused in this. Kindly bear with me if my questions are very cheap. Thank u all:)
I know that there is 32 bit support for 10.6(SnowLeopard). I would like to know if there is 32 bit support for 10.7(Lion)??
I have a 64 bit machine. I want a 32 bit 10.7 on it. How would i do so??
I have a 32 bit iMac and I have 10.6.8 in it. I have built an application on it; the application uses a user developed library which is also 32 bit. Now I carry on this application to another Mac machine which has 64 bit processor with 10.7(Lion). Will I be able to execute the same application as such in 10.7(Lion)?? I was not able to do so.
OS X uses a binary format that can support multiple architectures (e.g. 32- and 64-bit Intel, as well as PowerPC, etc) in a single executable or library. Most of the binaries and libraries in Lion are dual-architecture 32&64-bit Intel. So, yes, there is 32-bit support in Lion.
There is no such thing as 32-bit Lion; it's a dual-architecture OS. It can boot the kernel in either 32- or 64-bit mode, and run programs in 32- or 64-bit mode. Unlike most other OSes, it can even run programs in 64-bit mode under a 32-bit kernel. Whenever you run a program in Lion, it checks what architectures the program includes and what the CPU is capable of, and picks the "best" mode to run that program in.
There's no obvious reason this shouldn't work. If you were trying to use a 32-bit-only library from a program that was running in 64-bit mode, or a 64-bit-only library from a program running in 32-bit, it would fail. But if the program is 32-bit only it'll obviously run in that mode, your user developed library is 32-bit, and all of the libraries supplied with the OS are 32+64-bit.
There are a few things that might cause your 32-bit program to fail under Lion. First, does it depend on any libraries other than the one you mentioned and those supplied with the OS (e.g. libraries compiled locally by something like MacPorts, Fink, or Homebrew)? If so, those libraries might've been compiled 64-bit only. IMO libraries should always be compiled for all relevant architectures to avoid this sort of problem, but that's not the default.
Another possible source of trouble is if your program isn't really a program, but something that loads into another program (e.g. a plugin of some sort, screensaver, etc). In that case, your plugin needs to support whatever mode the program that'll load it is running in. You can actually get this issue with Java programs, since the java runtime will start in 64-bit mode (when the CPU supports it) in Lion.
Telling us more about your program and what specific error you get would probably help a lot...
I'm curious about how, running Windows 7 on x86, you could execute some code in kernel mode. This is for my own personal use; so I'm not bothered about giving Windows a trillion permissions or whatever. Does kernel mode code have to be specially compiled or linked? etc
Only code from the kernel itself, and from certain device drivers, can run in kernel (supervisor, ring 0) mode.
So you will have to write a device driver.
EDIT: the question has already been answered here.
Ring 0 drivers can execute code in kernel mode.
You will need Windows Device Driver Kit for such development.
Also you have to be extremely careful with driver development because unhandled exception occurring in the kernel indicates a serious bug that exists in the operating system or (more likely) in a device driver and not in an application. Once memory in the kernel gets potentially corrupt, it isn't safe for the system to continue running and you see what is typically called "the Blue Screen of Death."
So normally your drivers should be WHQL certified.
All WoW64 apps go through WoW64 emulation layer.
I'd like to know what happen in this layer.(especially, how they can convert address space)
Please give me some important points.
Since you have already posted the diagram it is clear that you know why WOW64 exists. Now to answer your question:
I'd like to know what happen in this layer.
I think you want to know how it is implemented.
Process startup: The loader loads 64-bit user-mode part 'Ntdll.dll' as usual, but also loads 32-bit Ntdll.dll in case the process is for 32-bit execution. It is now the loaders responsibility to initialize using Wow64.dll, which sets up process and thread contexts in 32-bit Ntdll and 'switches the CPU to 32-bit mode' for execution.
System Call: Everything is now running in 32-bit mode, until a system call. We know that system calls go through Ntdll.dll, User32.dll, and Gdi32.dll etc; in this case the 32-bit versions. There is a separate 32-bit version of these libraries located in \Windows\Syswow64 bit folder. These are just stubs that instead of issuing 'native system calls,' actually call in Wow64.dll. Now, it's simple for Wow64.dll to transition to 64-bit mode, convert parameters to their 64-bit counterparts, issue the system call using 64-bit versions, get the result, and reconvert the output to 32-bit. It then transitions CPU back to 32-bit mode and returns the output.
Exception dispatching, user callbacks, file system and registry operations, and I/O is handled in the same way, using hooks somewhere down the line. Read the book prescribed below.
(especially, how they can convert address space).
64-bit address space is a superset of 32-bit address space. Plus, the same pointer (actually PTE) in 32-bit/64-bit isn't used to refer to the whole address space, but there are separate page tables for user-space and for system space.
Please give me some important points.
To know windows, the most important point I can give you is to read 'Windows Internals' -- Russinovich
MSDN says:
WOW64 is the x86 emulator that allows 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows. WOW64 is provided with the operating system and does not have to be explicitly enabled.
The system isolates 32-bit applications from 64-bit applications, which includes preventing file and registry collisions. Console, GUI, and service applications are supported. The system provides interoperability across the 32/64 boundary for scenarios such as cut and paste and COM. However, 32-bit processes cannot load 64-bit DLLs for execution, and 64-bit processes cannot load 32-bit DLLs for execution.
What specifically do you not understand? Have you already read the Wikipedia article on the WoW64 subsystem? I think you'll find that it provides a fairly comprehensive overview.
And Microsoft provides some additional details here: WOW64 Implementation Details
"especially, how they can convert address space"
the key to that is knowing that amd and intel x64 processors have support for running 32bit and 64bit code side by side. this allows the os (when running native x64) to create a context for a 32bit thread that has 32bit addressing that coexists with the 64bit threads
in a similar way when the host os is running 32bit, it can create 16bit threads for running win16 and dos applications.
note, I don't think when running in the os 64bit that it can create 32bit AND 16bit threads - I guess amd decided that was just too much backwards compatability :-)
I decided to start learning assembly a while ago, and so I started with 16-bit assembly, using FASM.
However, I recently got a really new computer running Windows 7 64-bit, and now none of the compiled .COM files that the program assembles work any more. They give an error message, saying that the .COM is not compatible with 64-bit however.
32-bit assemblies still work, however I'd rather start with 16 and work my way up...
Is it possible to run a 16-bit program on windows 7? Or is there a specific way to compile them? Or should I give up and skip to 32-bit instead?
The reason you can't use 16-bit assembly is because the 16-bit subsystem has been removed from all 64-bit versions of Windows.
The only way to remedy this is to install something like DOSBox, or a virtual machine package such as VirtualBox and then install FreeDOS into that. That way, you get true DOS anyway. (NTVDM is not true DOS.)
Personally, would I encourage writing 16-bit assembly for DOS? No. I'd use 32- or even 64-bit assembly, the reason being there are a different set of function calls for different operating systems (called the ABI). So, the ABI for 64-bit Linux applications is different to 32-bit ones. I am not sure if that's the case with Windows. However, I guarantee that the meaning of interrupts is probably different.
Also, you've got all sorts of things to consider with 16-bit assembly, like the memory model in use. I might be wrong, but I believe DOS gives you 64K memory to play with "and that's it". Everything, your entire heap and stack along with code must fit into this space, as I understand it, which makes you wonder how anything ever worked, really.
My advice would be to just write 32-bit code. While it might initially seem like it would make sense to learn how to write 16-bit code, then "graduate" to 32-bit code, I'd say in reality rather the opposite is true: writing 32-bit code is actually easier because quite a few arbitrary architectural constraints (e.g., on what you can use as a base register) are basically gone in 32-bit code.
For that matter, I'd consider it open to substantial question whether there's ever a real reason to write 16-bit x86 code at all. For most practical purposes, it's a dead platform -- for desktop machines it's seriously obsolete, and for embedded machines, you're more likely to see things like ARMs or Microchip PICs. Unless you have a specific target in mind and know for sure that it's going to be a 16-bit x86, I'd probably forget that it existed, just like most of the rest of the world has.
32-bit Windows 7 and older include / enable NTVDM by default. On 32-bit Win8+, you can enable it in Windows Features.
On 64-bit Windows (or any other 64-bit OS), you need an emulator or full virtualization.
A kernel in long mode can't use vm86 mode to provide a virtual 8086 real-mode environment. This is a limitation of the AMD64 / x86-64 architecture.
With a 64-bit kernel running, the only way for your CPU to natively run in 16-bit mode is 16-bit protected mode (yes this exists; no, nobody uses it, and AFAIK mainstream OSes don't provide a way to use it). Or for the kernel to switch the CPU out of long mode back to legacy mode, but 64-bit kernels don't do that.
But actually, with hardware virtualization (VirtualBox, Hyper-V or whatever using Intel VT-x or AMD SVM), a 64-bit kernel can be the hypervisor for an entire virtual machine, whether that VM is running in 16-bit real mode or running a 32-bit OS (like Windows 98 or 2000) which can in turn use vm86 mode to run 16-bit real-mode executables.
Especially on a 64-bit kernel, it's usually easier to just emulate a 16-bit PC entirely (like DOSBOX does), instead of using HW virtualization to running normal instructions natively but trap direct hardware access (in / out, loads/stores to VGA memory, etc.) and int instructions that make DOS system calls / BIOS calls / whatever.
My development machine has a 64 bit proc, running a 32 bit distribution.
I would like to compile and test a kernel module with a 64 bit kernel. My question is :
Is there a 64 bit liveCD with kernel development package included ?
If it does not exist, How can I build a module for a 64 bit kernel ? Then I can eventually test it with a liveCD
You can install a 64-bit VM on a 32-bit operating system, provided the CPU supports it. I know this is possible with VMWare, don't know about anything else.
If you're doing any system development nowadays, I'd say use a VM, regardless of the target platform. Just use a VM.
It might be more technical than you would want to try, but, if you can get a 64bit toolchain installed, you should be able to compile the kernel through:
make ARCH=amd64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu- menuconfig
You should be able to boot your regular 32bit userland with a 64bit kernel (if you select the appropriate binary compatibility options)
Cheers!
http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download has links for 64-bit download, and the "make USB on windows" option includes screenshots showing how to make a bootable 64-bit ubuntu USB memory stick. (None of the other options in the {CD, USB} x {Windows, Mac, Ubuntu} instructions mention anything about only working for x86 vs x86-64.)