m1n1 VS docs

One of the coolest things (IMO) about the entire Asahi effort, and why I'm not at all surprised that they surpassed Apple, was the dedicated effort to build bespoke developer-friendly Python tooling early in the reverse engineering process.

https://asahilinux.org/2021/08/progress-report-august-2021/

> Since the hypervisor is built on m1n1, it works together with Python code running on a separate host machine. Effectively, the Python host can “puppeteer” the M1 and its guest OS remotely. The hypervisor itself is partially written in Python! This allows us to have a very fast test cycle, and we can even update parts of the hypervisor itself live during guest execution, without a reboot.

> We then started building a Python implementation of this RPC protocol and marshaling system. This implementation serves a triple purpose: it allows us to parse the DCP logs from the hypervisor to understand what macOS does, it allows us to build a prototype DCP driver entirely in Python, and it will in the future be used to automatically generate marshaling code for the Linux kernel DCP driver.

Code here: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/m1n1/blob/main/proxyclient/m1n...

If you watch any of Asahi Lina's streams from the time before they had working drivers, she's able to weave together complex bitflag-manipulating pipelines at the speed of thought with self-documenting code, all in Python running on the host machine, all while joking with viewers via her adorable avatar. I've never seen anything like it before. The whole workflow is a tremendous and unprecedented accomplishment by the entire Asahi team.

I wrote a m1n1 experiment to test IRQ delivery in EL1 and noticed something was weird. I already knew about that IRQ control register (3 masks IRQs entirely and is the default, that whole thing took like a day or two back when I first added M1 Pro/Max support), so I tried other values and 2 fixed it.

They have not dropped hardly any official documentation on iBoot. The best safe documentation is in: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/m1n1/ There's a lot of tainted docs out there because the source to iBoot was illegally leaked a while back, but marcan is known for being a bit of a hardass when it comes to legal reverse engineering (thankfully).

No its uefi boot manager “https://github.com/AsahiLinux/m1n1 “

What makes you say there isn't community participation? The repo for m1n1, at least, has 42 contributors according to Github[1]. There's plenty more reporting bugs and such, and their IRC channel seems relatively active.

1: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/m1n1

I can confirm that’s pretty much exactly what happens. I did some digging with the help of m1n1 a while back, and essentially yeah, this is almost exactly what it does. The only difference is that, rather than tracking which cores are running emulated code, the scheduler keeps track of which processes are running in emulation mode, and prior to returning to userland after a context switch, the kernel sets control register bits for features like TSO (which is what I was interested in looking into at the time; I believe that specifically is controlled somewhere in the actlr_el1 register). Although only the P-cores actually implement the necessary x86 emulation behavior, the scheduler of course wants to ensure that a process is not pinned to any one core, and that native and emulated processes alike can preempt and interleave with each other on the P-cores just as they would if there were no emulation.

That shim/stub is m1n1. It is the bootloader for Asahi Linux, but also makes it possible to talk to the hardware over USB as just described by Lina. marcan even implemented a small hypervisor in m1n1, so it can be used to run MacOS and trace how MacOS is accessing the hardware.

Windows 11 ARM dualboot will come to M1 macs in the near future. See m1n1 for progress.

marcan of the Asahi Linux project got into a discussion on reddit about this, and says that when it comes to hardware, you just can’t know.

> I can't prove the absence of a silicon backdoor on any machine, but I can say that given everything we know about AS systems (and we know quite a bit), there is no known place a significant backdoor could hide that could completely compromise my system. And there are several such places on pretty much every x86 system

(Long) thread starts here, show hidden comments for the full discussion https://old.reddit.com/r/AsahiLinux/comments/13voeey/what_is...

I highly recommend reading this if you’re interested https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Introduction-to-Appl...

Depends on the box. In general if there is a hardwired HDMI port it works, if it's an alt mode it doesn't yet. The feature pages give detail by hardware, heres a direct link to the M2 page https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/M2-Series-Feature-Su...

https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/M1-Series-Feature-Su...

According to this page it should work on M1 MBP, but there is also a note about a specific patch released next week.

I'm just refuting that OP's dot update problem on Sonoma was caused by the refresh rate bug. In all likelihood OP doesn't have a weird Sonoma/Ventura dual boot situation going on (or Ashai Linux for that matter, who wrote a great article about this). In all my testing (and with a large enterprise sample size) we had zero reports of the refresh bug impacting an Apple Silicon Mac running just Sonoma itself.

> They don't support variations of software at all. They support the hardware. [...] Asahi does not need to support applications at all.

From their FAQ page[1]:

> We will eventually release a remix of Arch Linux ARM, packaged for installation by end-users, as a distribution of the same name. The majority of the work resides in hardware support, drivers, and tools, and it will be upstreamed to the relevant projects. The distribution will be a convenient package for easy installation by end-users and give them access to bleeding-edge versions of the software we develop.

As distro maintainers, it is their job to make sure the applications they package work on the hardware they support. This includes submitting patches upstream when that is not the case, as application maintainers likely wouldn't want to support such a niche environment directly. So, yes, they rely on volunteers to fix issues, but they will likely have to support many applications themselves.

There is still a lot of broken software, as this list[2] is surely not exhaustive.

> Same deal for any other hardware manufacturer. [...] Really not much different to other hardware manufacturers since Linux started.

No, it's very different. First of all, the amount of Linux hackers who volunteered to reverse engineer the wide variety of hardware was orders of magnitude larger than the Asahi team. Even if they limit the amount of devices they support, modern computers are far more complex than in the early days of Linux. Regardless of how talented the Asahi team is, maintaining all the hardware of a modern computer is a sisyphean task for a project run by volunteers.

Secondly, hardware manufacturers could see the benefit of getting their hardware to run in Linux, and many eventually took over support from volunteers. Apple has shown no interest in doing so, and has historically been hostile to open source.

> Asahi devs have made it clear that Apple has chosen to avoid blocking installation of other operating systems.

The fact they allow installation of other operating systems today, doesn't mean that this decision couldn't change in the future. Services are a large part of their business, and allowing a group of hackers to use their hardware without being part of their software ecosystem may seem like a non-issue today, but if this group grows larger assuming projects like Asahi are successful, this might become a considerable loss of income which wouldn't be in their best interest.

> Apple has no issue with it.

Can you point me to an official ackgnowledgment of Asahi Linux by Apple? Or any indication that leaving this door open was a sign of good will, instead of a lack of interest in closing it? What makes you think they wouldn't eventually lock down Macbooks in the same way they do iPhones and iPads?

> ARM is a stable well supported platform for Linux

It's really not. A lot of software works, but when it doesn't, the user is SOL. As you can see on their Broken Software page[2], the major issue is precisely with AArch64 support. This should improve eventually, and Asahi is certainly a torchbearer in this scenario, but today it's yet another hurdle of using Apple hardware.

[1]: https://asahilinux.org/about/#is-this-a-linux-distribution

[2]: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Broken-Software

More information about the macOS Sonoma ProMotion bug here.

Here’s the actual issue for anyone that cares, fully documented : https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/macOS-Sonoma-Boot-Failures