# Assemble, Don't Install

One of the common questions that comes up when discussing the ResinStack is how it differs from more widely known solutions like HashiCorp Packer. Lets take a quick look into some of the qualities of each.

## HashiCorp Packer

Packer is a build automation tool for assembling machine images from either existing images that require specialization, or from OS installation media to create entirely new base images. The way packer does this is far beyond the scope of this article, but generally speaking packer performs its magic by scripting the lifecycle of a virtual machine in some provider, either locally or in a remote environment. It then runs one or more provisioners that interact with the machine to run scripts, configuration management tools, or other policy application mechanisms. This allows a great degree of flexibility because it enables any task that could be done by hand to also be done to the machine under construction.

All this flexibility comes at a price though, its difficult to apply machine policy to and generally is only introspect-able once artifacts have been generated. This unfortunately results in a very opaque build and which may result in an unusable artifact. Packer also generates environment specific artifacts, which while useful means that it is not always obvious if a defect being investigated has to do with the image specifically or the particular environment it has manifested in.

Perhaps the biggest requirement of packer is also its greatest strength, it depends on the operating system it is installing to be “self-hosting.” In this case, self-hosting refers to an operating system that is capable of installing itself and further installing software using included tooling. Packer has no visibility into the operating system it is installing, and likewise the operating system being installed has no visibility into packer.

## LinuxKit

LinuxKit is a small suite of utilities all referred to collectively as linuxkit which are used for building packages, assembling OS images, and post processing those OS images into artifacts suitable for specific virtualization platforms.

The way linuxkit does what it does is nuanced and complicated, and you’re highly encouraged to read the linuxkit architecture document if you are interested in the gritty details. In short though, linuxkit starts from nothing and constructs an n-way filesystem union from pre-prepared filesystem images to produce the root filesystem of a virtual machine. This image is then exported as a kernel and packed filesystem in initrd format. These artifacts can be further post-processed for a variety of providers, or used as is, but the important part is that at no point does this process require actually booting the final artifact.

This has some great advantages, but does come at a cost. First off, it means that as long as your initial input artifacts are well versioned, you can reproduce the same OS images later. This is important for audit-ability as well as debugging problems that may only be discovered significantly farther down the road. Second, this approach masks broken images that are only broken at boot time by not booting them. Its important to use a robust workflow that includes tests when using a machine image from an assembly based paradigm.

So what are the advantages of this approach? Well, besides the image reproduce-ability feature, not booting the image means it doesn’t technically have to even be bootable on the current architecture! For example, if your cloud provider provides multiple machine architectures such as amd64 and arm64, you likely don’t want to have to duplicate your entire build infrastructure for the second architecture. At the very least this would require some clever use of qemu to do machine instruction translation across architectures. This is a fascinating but low performance approach to building OS images for other platforms. Instead it would be much nicer to take artifacts that have been pre-prepared for other architectures and assemble them together into a complete build pipeline. A quick aside: its assumed here that any organization that is seriously able to use multiple incompatible CPU architectures in production has the capabilities to build their production applications in multiple languages due to the use of modern languages that either are platform agnostic (python, nodejs, ruby) or capable of low/zero effort cross compiling (golang, rust, haskell).

Assembling images rather than booting them also means that the assembly process is much more declarative. There’s no need to run commands, so the need to lex shell scripts to figure out what’s being changed isn’t necessary. Instead its possible to introspect spec files directly to determine if policy infractions are present. Since the ResinStack uses terraform to assemble machine images, its possible to use existing tooling such as tfsec or checkov to apply custom rules for validation. Such introspection and rules validation is typically intensely OS specific since it has to be applied after the final artifact is constructed, but when assembly is used instead of installation it becomes possible to evaluate the individual components in isolation.

So when should you use each? When its appropriate! If you require the services of a general purpose operating system such as the need to run custom installation scripts on a per-machine basis then a tool like Packer is a great fit. Packer can also be a great fit for when you need to use less modular operating systems such as macOS or Windows where minimal base images are otherwise unavailable. If though you are able to confine your on-machine needs to workflows where the base image can be kept small, relatively simplistic, and stateless, then the linuxkit paradigm offers compelling advantages.

This post has hopefully provided some illumination on why the ResinStack uses linuxkit, and how it is different from traditional tools like packer. Feel free to reach out via any of the modes of contact on the contacts page if you have any questions or feedback.