My NovaCustom NV41PZ laptop arrived a couple of days ago, and today I had some time to install it. You may want to read about my purchasing decision process first. I expected a rough ride to get it to work, given the number of people claiming that modern laptops can’t run fully free operating systems. I first tried the Trisquel 10 live DVD and it booted fine including network, but the mouse trackpad did not work. Before investigating it, I noticed a forum thread about Trisquel 11 beta3 images, and being based on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and has Linux-libre 5.15 it seemed better to start with more modern software. After installing through the live DVD successfully, I realized I didn’t like MATE but wanted to keep using GNOME. I reverted back to installing a minimal environment through the netinst image, and manually installed GNOME (apt-get install gnome) since I prefer that over MATE, together with a bunch of other packages. I’ve been running it for a couple of hours now, and here is a brief summary of the hardware components that works.
Dell 27″ 2560×1440 and Ben-Q PD3220U 3840×1260 works fine
Screen (USB-C)
Via Wavlink USB-C/HDMI port extender: Dell 27″ 2560×1440 and Ben-Q PD3220U 3840×1260
Webcam
Builtin 1MP Camera
Microphone
Intel Alder Lake
Keyboard
ISO layout, all function keys working
Mouse
Trackpad, tap clicking and gestures
Ethernet RJ45
Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 with r8169 driver
Memory card
O2 Micro comes up as /dev/mmcblk0
Docking station
Wavlink 4xUSB, 2xHDMI, DP, RJ45, …
Connectivity
USB-A, USB-C
Audio
Intel Alder Lake
Hardware components and status
So what’s not working? Unfortunately, NovaCustom does not offer any WiFi or Bluetooth module that is compatible with Trisquel, so the AX211 (1675x) Wifi/Bluetooth card in it is just dead weight. I imagine it would be possible to get the card to work if non-free firmware is loaded. I don’t need Bluetooth right now, and use the Technoetic N-150 USB WiFi dongle when I’m not connected to wired network.
Compared against my X201, the following factors have improved.
Faster – CPU benchmark suggests it is 8 times faster than my old i7-620M. While it feels snappier it is not a huge difference. While NVMe should improve SSD performance, benchmark wise the NVMe 980Pro only seems around 2-3 faster than the SATA-based 860 Evo. Going from 6GB to 64GB is 10 times more memory, which is useful for disk caching.
I’m still unhappy about the following properties with both the NV41PZ and the X201.
CPU microcode is not available under free license.
Intel Mangement Engine is still present in the CPU.
No builtin WiFi/Bluetooth that works with free software.
Some other secondary processors (e.g., disk or screen) may be running non-free software but at least none requires non-free firmware.
Hopefully my next laptop will have improved on this further. I hope to be able to resolve the WiFi part by replacing the WiFi module, there appears to be options available but I have not tested them on this laptop yet. Does anyone know of a combined WiFi and Bluetooth M.2 module that would work on Trisquel?
While I haven’t put the laptop to heavy testing yet, everything that I would expect a laptop to be able to do seems to work fine. Including writing this blog post!
I’m about to migrate to a new laptop, having done a brief pre-purchase review of options on Fosstodon and reaching a decision to buy the NovaCustom NV41. Given the rapid launch and decline of Mastodon instances, I thought I’d better summarize my process and conclusion on my self-hosted blog until the fediverse self-hosting situation improves.
Since 2010 my main portable computing device has been the Lenovo X201 that replaced the Dell Precision M65 that I bought in 2006. I have been incredibly happy with the X201, even to the point that in 2015 when I wanted to find a replacement, I couldn’t settle on a decision and eventually realized I couldn’t articulate what was wrong with the X201 and decided to just buy another X201 second-hand for my second office. There is still no deal-breaker with the X201, and I’m doing most of my computing on it including writing this post. However, today I can better articulate what is lacking with the X201 that I desire, and the state of the available options on the market has improved since my last attempt in 2015.
Briefly, my desired properties are:
Portable – weight under 1.5kg
Screen size 9-14″
ISO keyboard layout, preferably Swedish layout
Mouse trackpad, WiFi, USB and external screen connector
Decent market availability: I should be able to purchase it from Sweden and have consumer protection, warranty, and some hope of getting service parts for the device
Manufactured and sold by a vendor that is supportive of free software
Preferably RJ45 connector (for data center visits)
My workload for the machine is Emacs, Firefox, Nextcloud client, GNOME, Evolution (mail & calendar), LibreOffice Calc/Writer, compiling software and some podman/qemu for testing. I have used Debian as the main operating system for the entire life of this laptop, but have experimented with PureOS recently. My current X201 is useful enough for this, although support for 4K displays and a faster machine wouldn’t hurt.
Based on my experience in 2015 that led me to make no decision, I changed perspective. This is a judgement call and I will not be able to fulfil all criteria. I will have to decide on a balance and the final choice will include elements that I really dislike, but still it will hopefully be better than nothing. The conflict for me mainly center around these parts:
Non-free BIOS. This is software that runs on the main CPU and has full control of everything. I want this to run free software as much as possible. Coreboot is the main project in this area, although I prefer the more freedom-oriented Libreboot.
Proprietary and software-upgradeable parts of the main CPU. This includes CPU microcode that is not distributed as free software. The Intel Management Engine (AMD and other CPU vendors has similar technology) falls into this category as well, and is problematic because it is an entire non-free operating system running within the CPU, with many security and freedom problems. This aspect is explored in the Libreboot FAQ further. Even if these parts can be disabled (Intel ME) or not utilized (CPU microcode), I believe the mere presence of these components in the design of the CPU is a problem, and I would prefer a CPU without these properties.
Non-free software in other microprocessors in the laptop. Ultimately, I tend agree with the FSF’s “secondary processor” argument but when it is possible to chose between a secondary processor that runs free software and one that runs proprietary software, I would prefer as many secondary processors as possible to run free software. The libreboot binary blob reduction policy describes a move towards stronger requirements.
Non-free firmware that has to be loaded during runtime into CPU or secondary processors. Using Linux-libre solves this but can cause some hardware to be unusable.
WiFi, BlueTooth and physical network interface (NIC/RJ45). This is the most notable example of secondary processor problem with running non-free software and requiring non-free firmware. Sometimes these may even require non-free drivers, although in recent years this has usually been reduced into requiring non-free firmware.
A simple choice for me would be to buy one of the FSF RYF certified laptops. Right now that list only contains the 10+ year old Lenovo series, and I actually already have a X200 with libreboot that I bought earlier for comparison. The reason the X200 didn’t work out as a replacement for me was the lack of a mouse trackpad, concerns about non-free EC firmware, Intel ME uncertainty (is it really neutralized?) and non-free CPU microcode (what are the bugs that it fixes?), but primarily that for some reason that I can’t fully articulate it feels weird to use a laptop manufactured by Lenovo but modified by third parties to be useful. I believe in market forces to pressure manufacturers into Doing The Right Thing, and feel that there is no incentive for Lenovo to use libreboot in the future when this market niche is already fulfilled by re-sellers modifying Lenovo laptops. So I’d be happier buying a laptop from someone who is natively supportive of they way I’m computing. I’m sure this aspect could be discussed a lot more, and maybe I’ll come back to do that, and could even reconsider my thinking (the right-to-repair argument is compelling). I will definitely continue to monitor the list of RYF-certified laptops to see if future entries are more suitable options for me.
Eventually I decided to buy the NovaCustom NV41 laptop, and it arrived quickly and I’m in the process of setting it up. I hope to write a separate blog about it next.
The Guile bindings for GnuTLS has been part of GnuTLS since spring 2007 when Ludovic Courtès contributed it after some initial discussion. I have been looking into getting back to do GnuTLS coding, and during a recent GnuTLS meeting one topic was Guile bindings. It seemed like a fairly self-contained project to pick up on. It is interesting to re-read the old thread when this work was included: some of the concerns brought up there now have track record to be evaluated on. My opinion that the cost of introducing a new project per language binding today is smaller than the cost of maintaining language bindings as part of the core project. I believe the cost/benefit ratio has changed during the past 15 years: introducing a new project used to come with a significant cost but this is no longer the case, as tooling and processes for packaging have improved. I have had similar experience with Java, C# and Emacs Lisp bindings for GNU Libidn as well, where maintaining them centralized slow down the pace of updates. Andreas Metzler pointed to a similar conclusion reached by Russ Allbery.
There are many ways to separate a project into two projects; just copying the files into a new git repository would have been the simplest and was my original plan. However Ludo’ mentioned git-filter-branch in an email, and the idea of keeping all git history for some of the relevant files seemed worth pursuing to me. I quickly found git-filter-repo which appears to be the recommend approach, and experimenting with it I found a way to filter out the GnuTLS repo into a small git repository that Guile-GnuTLS could be based on. The commands I used were the following, if you want to reproduce things.
I debated with myself back and forth whether to include some files that would be named the same in the new repository but would share little to no similar lines, for example configure.ac, Makefile.am not to mention README and NEWS. Initially I thought it would be nice to preserve the history for all lines that went into the new project, but this is a subjective judgement call. What brought me over to a more minimal approach was that the contributor history and attribution would be quite strange for the new repository: Should Guile-GnuTLS attribute the work of the thousands of commits to configure.ac which had nothing to do with Guile? Should the people who wrote that be mentioned as contributor of Guile-GnuTLS? I think not.
The next step was to get a reasonable GitLab CI/CD pipeline up, to make sure the project builds on some free GNU/Linux distributions like Trisquel and PureOS as well as the usual non-free distributions like Debian and Fedora to have coverage of dpkg and rpm based distributions. I included builds on Alpine and ArchLinux as well, because they tend to trigger other portability issues. I wish there were GNU Guix docker images available for easy testing on that platform as well. The GitLab CI/CD rules for a project like this are fairly simple.
To get things out of the door, I tagged the result as v3.7.9 and published a GitLab release page for Guile-GnuTLS that includes OpenPGP-signed source tarballs manually uploaded built on my laptop. The URLs for these tarballs are not very pleasant to work with, and discovering new releases automatically appears unreliable, but I don’t know of a better approach.
To finish this project, I have proposed a GnuTLS merge request to remove all Guile-related parts from the GnuTLS core.
Doing some GnuTLS-related work again felt nice, it was quite some time ago so thank you for giving me this opportunity. Thoughts or comments? Happy hacking!
I self-host some services on virtual machines (VMs), and I’m currently using Debian 11.x as the host machine relying on the libvirt infrastructure to manage QEMU/KVM machines. While everything has worked fine for years (including on Debian 10.x), there has always been one issue causing a one-minute delay every time I install a new VM: the default images run a DHCP client that never succeeds in my environment. I never found out a way to disable DHCP in the image, and none of the documented ways through cloud-init that I have tried worked. A couple of days ago, after reading the AlmaLinux wiki I found a solution that works with Debian.
The following commands creates a Debian VM with static network configuration without the annoying one-minute DHCP delay. The three essential cloud-init keywords are the NoCloud meta-data parameters dsmode:local, static network-interfaces setting combined with the user-data bootcmd keyword. I’m using a Raptor CS Talos II ppc64el machine, so replace the image link with a genericcloud amd64 image if you are using x86.
Unfortunately virt-install from Debian 11 does not support the –cloud-init network-config parameter, so if you want to use a version 2 network configuration with cloud-init (to specify IPv6 addresses, for example) you need to replace the final virt-install command with the following.
There are still some warnings like the following, but it does not seem to cause any problem:
[FAILED] Failed to start Initial cloud-init job (pre-networking).
Finally, if you do not want the cloud-init tools installed in your VMs, I found the following set of additional user-data commands helpful. Cloud-init will not be enabled on first boot and a cron job will be added that purges some unwanted packages.
GSS-API is a standardized framework that is used by applications to, primarily, support Kerberos V5 authentication. GSS-API is standardized by IETF and supported by protocols like SSH, SMTP, IMAP and HTTP, and implemented by software projects such as OpenSSH, Exim, Dovecot and Apache httpd (via mod_auth_gssapi). The implementations of Kerberos V5 and GSS-API that are packaged for common GNU/Linux distributions, such as Debian, include MIT Kerberos, Heimdal and (less popular) GNU Shishi/GSS.
When an application or library is packaged for a GNU/Linux distribution, a choice is made which GSS-API library to link with. I believe this leads to two problematic consequences: 1) it is difficult for end-users to chose between Kerberos implementation, and 2) dependency bloat for non-Kerberos users. Let’s discuss these separately.
No system admin or end-user choice over the GSS-API/Kerberos implementation used
There are differences in the bug/feature set of MIT Kerberos and that of Heimdal’s, and definitely that of GNU Shishi. This can lead to a situation where an application (say, Curl) is linked to MIT Kerberos, and someone discovers a Kerberos related problem that would have been working if Heimdal was used, or vice versa. Sometimes it is possible to locally rebuild a package using another set of dependencies. However doing so has a high maintenance cost to track security fixes in future releases. It is an unsatisfying solution for the distribution to flip flop between which library to link to, depending on which users complain the most. To resolve this, a package could be built in two variants: one for MIT Kerberos and one for Heimdal. Both can be shipped. This can help solve the problem, but the question of which variant to install by default leads to similar concerns, and will also eventually leads to dependency conflicts. Consider an application linked to libraries (possible in several steps) where one library only supports MIT Kerberos and one library only supports Heimdal.
The fact remains that there will continue to be multiple Kerberos implementations. Distributions will continue to support them, and will be faced with the dilemma of which one to link to by default. Distributions and the people who package software will have little guidance on which implementation to chose from their upstream, since most upstream support both implementations. The result is that system administrators and end-users are not given a simple way to have flexibility about which implementation to use.
Dependency bloat for non-Kerberos use-cases.
Compared to the number of users of GNU/Linux systems out there, the number of Kerberos users on GNU/Linux systems is smaller. Here distributions face another dilemma. Should they enable GSS-API for all applications, to satisfy the Kerberos community, or should they be conservative with adding dependencies to reduce attacker surface for the non-Kerberos users? This is a dilemma with no clear answer, and one approach has been to ship two versions of a package: one with Kerberos support and one without. Another option here is for upstream to support loadable modules, for example Dovecot implement this and Debian ship with a separate ‘dovecot-gssapi’ package that extend the core Dovecot seamlessly. Few except some larger projects appear to be willing to carry that maintenance cost upstream, so most only support build-time linking of the GSS-API library.
There are a number of real-world situations to consider, but perhaps the easiest one to understand for most GNU/Linux users is OpenSSH. The SSH protocol supports Kerberos via GSS-API, and OpenSSH implement this feature, and most GNU/Linux distributions ship a SSH client and SSH server linked to a GSS-API library. Someone made the choice of linking it to a GSS-API library, for the arguable smaller set of people interested in it, and also the choice which library to link to. Rebuilding OpenSSH locally without Kerberos support comes with a high maintenance cost. Many people will not need or use the Kerberos features of the SSH client or SSH server, and having it enabled by default comes with a security cost. Having a vulnerability in OpenSSH is critical for many systems, and therefor its dependencies are a reasonable concern. Wouldn’t it be nice if OpenSSH was built in a way that didn’t force you to install MIT Kerberos or Heimdal? While still making it easy for Kerberos users to use it, of course.
Hopefully I have made the problem statement clear above, and that I managed to convince you that the state of affairs is in need of improving. I learned of the problems from my personal experience with maintaining GNU SASL in Debian, and for many years I ignored this problem.
Libgssglue is a library written by Kevin W. Coffman based on historical GSS-API code, the initial release was in 2004 (using the name libgssapi) and the last release was in 2012. Libgssglue provides a minimal GSS-API library and header file, so that any application can link to it instead of directly to MIT Kerberos or Heimdal (or GNU GSS). The administrator or end-user can select during run-time which GSS-API library to use, through a global /etc/gssapi_mech.conf file or even a local GSSAPI_MECH_CONF environment variable. Libgssglue is written in C, has no external dependencies, and is BSD-style licensed. It was developed for the CITI NFSv4 project but libgssglue ended up not being used.
I have added support to build GNU SASL with libgssglue — the changes required were only ./configure.ac-related since GSS-API is a standardized framework. I have written a fairly involved CI/CD check that builds GNU SASL with MIT Kerberos, Heimdal, libgssglue and GNU GSS, sets ups a local Kerberos KDC and verify successful GSS-API and GS2-KRB5 authentications. The ‘gsasl’ command line tool connects to a local example SMTP server, also based on GNU SASL (linked to all variants of GSS-API libraries), and to a system-installed Dovecot IMAP server that use the MIT Kerberos GSS-API library. This is on Debian but I expect it to be easily adaptable to other GNU/Linux distributions. The check triggered some (expected) Shishi/GSS-related missing features, and triggered one problem related to authorization identities that may be a bug in GNU SASL. However, testing shows that it is possible to link GNU SASL with libgssglue and have it be operational with any choice of GSS-API library that is shipped with Debian. See GitLab CI/CD code and its CI/CD output.
This experiment worked so well that I contacted Kevin to learn that he didn’t have any future plans for the project. I have adopted libgssglue and put up a Libgssglue GitLab project page, and pushed out a libgssglue 0.5 release fixing only some minor build-related issues. There are still some missing newly introduced GSS-API interfaces that could be added, but I haven’t been able to find any critical issues with it. Amazing that an untouched 10 year old project works so well!
My current next steps are:
Release GNU SASL with support for Libgssglue and encourage its use in documentation.
Make GNU SASL link to Libgssglue in Debian, to avoid a hard dependency on MIT Kerberos, but still allowing a default out-of-the-box Kerberos experience with GNU SASL.
Maintain libgssglue upstream and implement self-checks, CI/CD testing, new GSS-API interfaces that have been defined, and generally fix bugs and improve the project. Help appreciated!
Maintain the libgssglue package in Debian.
Look into if there are applications in Debian that link to a GSS-API library that could instead be linked to libgssglue to allow flexibility for the end-user and reduce dependency bloat.
