[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNUnet-developers] Why old-school C?
Re: [GNUnet-developers] Why old-school C?
Sun, 02 Aug 2015 21:23:16 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0
On 07/31/2015 01:16 AM, Jeff Burdges wrote:
> Just some thoughts on doing GNUNet code in Rust :
> Rust is playing the "long game" in that they want to get things right.
> We should probably adopt this attitude when writing GNUNet layers in
> Rust, while staying more pragmatic when working in C.
Well, can't disagree with "getting things right" ;-).
> What would be an example?
> I suspect one obstacle to GNUNet's wider adoption is the relative
> disjointness from outside projects. An important example is GNUNet
> using its own scheduler and IO layers, as opposed to using say libevent,
> which afaik does exactly the same thing. A curious developer who sees a
> project using libevent will think "Oh yeah I've love to learn that
> anyways", while viewing GNUNet's scheduler, etc. as obstacles (less
> transferable knowledge).
Well, I have a few comments on this:
1) Programming with event loops is programming with event loops, which
library you use doesn't matter too much. Not knowing how to program with
event loops is a major obstacle, but the specific library is not that
2) There isn't just libevent and libev. There's also libuv and glib, and
then a bunch more that are (probably?) less well-known. They all have
a) libevent provides the kitchen-sink. It includes logging, a DNS
resolver, an HTTP server and an RPC framework. Logging seems less
powerful than what we have in GNUnet, and the HTTP server seems to
require more manual handholding by the user and lack some features
compared to GNU libmicrohttpd (starting with simple things like TLS
support). Similarly, the DNS client is somewhat restricted over the
dnsstub we have in GNUnet (src/dns/). The key-value lookups in the RPC
API would suggest that it will be somewhat slower than the existing
RPC-style used in GNUnet. Given how much RPC we do, this might be
relevant. So while the kitchen-sink may largely seem useful, I'm not
sure we'll be happy with the details.
b) libev isn't (yet) ported to Windows and many other platforms. It is
unclear to me if it is actually faster, or if that has been fixed for
libevent somehow. It also _seems_ that libevent is better supported, but
maybe libev is simpler and thus just requires less support...
c) glib comes *really* with the kitchen sink: it's own type system,
plugin loading/unloading, string manipulation, memory management,
logging, and the list goes on. glib is so big that it is hard to
justify deploying it in a system to be used also on 'small' (GUI-less)
d) All of this said, the GNUnet scheduler *also* has known issues: (1)
it's still based on select(), we should really eventually support
poll()/epoll()/kqueue(). The timeout queue has linear worst-case
performance, better data structures exist, even within GNUnet. We should
have used a function returning the `struct GNUNET_SCHEDULER_TaskContext`
instead of passing it to each GNUNET_SCHEDULER_Task, thereby avoiding an
extra argument that remains unused in 99% of all cases. Finally, the
existing shutdown semantics are awful, we should have a separate task
category to run on-shutdown, and not ready all tasks. Furthermore, a
better integration with the GNUENT_SIGNAL-API might also be nice. So my
wishlist here is also far from empty.
3) But really, the answer is entirely different: what we need is a
*pluggable* event loop, just like the glib event loop is pluggable.
Right now, it is somewhere between hard and impossible to combine GNUnet
code with code that uses another event loop (other than glib). And glib
is painful (checkout gnunet-gtk/src/common/eventloop.c). I would like
to be in a situation where developers can initialize libgnunetutil and
tell it to use libev, libevent, glib, GNUnet-native or any other custom
event loop by passing some (ideally small) glue code. That's what we
should strive to achieve -- in addition to fixing the (d)-issues
eventually. The problem with the (d)-issues is mostly that it is a lot
of effort for hardly any (visible, short-term) effect, so it doesn't put
these high on my list. Still, just like migrating more code to the
MQ-API and cleaning up our RPC logic, it does make sense to invest in
this as part of a long-term strategy towards clean code.
> Rust has a very good FFI to C code, but writing safe wrappers around
> unsafe C code can incur overhead. In particular, Rust folk had issues
> with libuv, yet another take on libevent. And GNUNet utils appears
> quite unsafe by Rust standards, even before worrying about leaked
Care to elaborate about 'unsafe'? Also, I'm not sure what you refer to
by 'leaked sockets', but there is one particular case where we leak a
socket intentionally to safely signal process termination
(gnunet-service-arm leaks the client socket from a connection by
"gnunet-arm -e", so that "gnunet-arm -e" can wait for a read() on that
connection to fail and thus be sure that the gnunet-service-arm process
has been cleaned up by the OS entirely). If you worry about that
particular instance, well, C sometimes enables creative problem solving ;-).
> Instead, Rust has tools like :
> These are a callback based asynchronous IO toolkit, much like libevent,
> GNUNet utils, etc., but they do it the "Rust way", i.e. safe and pretty.
> And Rust's closures make callbacks comprehensible.
I don't really see a semantic difference between gj/kj/promises and what
we do in GNUnet. The fact that we have to deal with C without lambdas
and (automatic) closures may make the code harder to read, but in return
we get C and in particular the great tool support chains for C.
> In this short term, there would be more work required to write GNUNet
> code using mio, gj, etc. Worse, mio does not support Window yet,
> depends upon unstable language features, and might still face tricky
> networking hurdles. In the long term, we'd have more people actually
> wanting to write code with us though.
I'd agree with this conclusion:
1) Certain gnunetutil APIs still need work, and as we move forward those
other styles may provide inspiration --- and being more compatible with
them would generally be a good thing.
2) Quality bindings (or full implementations) in any reasonably popular
and sane language are always helpful to get more people on board.
3) This is one issue among many. It is reasonable to have it on the
radar as a long-term consideration, but there are a bunch of short-term
issues we should focus on first.
In particular, I see that bratao seriously broke NAT (#3921, #3918), and
that we have some fresh critical issues in CADET, CORE and DATASTORE in
the bugtracker. Shortening this list of typically rather trivial issues
from key systems is likely a rather cost-effective method of attracting
new users and developers ;-). So I'll prioritize fixing those bugs over
adding new features or rewriting stuff in new languages for now.
My 2 cents
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [GNUnet-developers] Why old-school C?,
Christian Grothoff <=