[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Redesigning Libvirt: Adopting use of a safe language




On 11/14/2017 12:27 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The Problem(s)
> ==============

First off I'll state I'm not opposed to considering adopting or
integrating a newer language. Still, I have my concerns, fears,
uncertainty, and doubts. In a world where one must "adapt or die", I'm
not opposed to being more accepting to see GO type contributions, but I
also know there's a learning curve involved with adapting and forcing
myself to learn a new language especially one that's touted as being
more C like, but really isn't necessarily what I've been used to for a
long time (at least at first glance).

> 
> When libvirt was created, C was the only viable choice for anything aiming to be
> a core system library component. At that time 2005, aside from C there were
> common choices of Java, Python, Perl. Java was way too heavy for a low level
> system component, Python was becoming popular but not widely used for low level
> system services and Perl was on a downward trend. None of them are accessible to
> arbitrary languages as libraries, without providing a RPC based API service. As
> it turns out libvirt did end up having RPC based approach for many virt drivers,
> but the original approach was to be a pure library component.
> 
> IOW it is understandable why C was chosen back in 2005, but 12 years on the world
> around us has changed significantly. It has long been accepted that C is a very
> challenging language to write "safe" applications. By "safe" I mean avoiding the
> many problems that lead to critical security bugs. In particular the lack of a
> safe memory management framework leads to memory leaks, double free's, stack or
> heap corruption and more. The lack of strict type safety just compounds these
> problems. We've got many tools to help us in this area, and at times have tried
> to design our APIs to avoid problems, but there's no getting away from fact that
> even the best programmers will continually screw up memory management leading to
> crashes & security flaws. It is just a fact of life when using C, particularly if
> you want to be fast at accepting new feature proposals.
> 
> It is no surprise that there have been no new mainstream programming languages in
> years (decades) which provide an inherantly unsafe memory management framework.
> Even back in 2005 security was a serious challenge, but in the last 10+ years
> the situation has only got worse with countless high profile security bugs a
> direct result of the choice to use C. Given the threat's faced today, one has to
> seriously consider the wisdom of writing any new system software in C. In another
> 10 years time, it would not surprise me if any system software still using C is
> considered an obsolete relic, and ripe for a rewrite in a memory safe language.
> 

Programming languages come and (well) go - it just so happens the C has
been a survivor. There's always been challengers promising something,
but eventually falling by the wayside when either they fail to deliver
their promise or the next sexy language comes along. In my 30 years
(eeks) even with all warts C has been there. It was certainly better
than writing in assembly/macro or BLISS. I recall converting a lot of
BLISS to C when I first started.

There is something to be said about the "devil you know" vs. the one you
don't! Just as much as there is a need to keep yourself "current" with
technology trends. The latter becomes harder to do the longer I do this.

> There are long term implications for the potential pool of contributors in the
> future. There has always been a limited pool of programmers able todo a good job
> in C, compared to those who know higher level languages like Python/Java. A
> programmer write bad code in any language, but in C/C++ that bad code quickly
> turns into a serious problem. Libvirt has done ok despite this, but I feel our
> level of contribution, particularly "drive by" patch submissions, is held back
> by use of C. Move forward another 10 years, and while C will certainly exist, I
> struggle to imagine the talent pool being larger. On the contrary I would expect
> it to shrink, certainly in relative terms, and possibly in absolute terms, as
> other new languages take C's place for low level systems programming. 10 years
> ago, Docker would have been written in C, but they took the sensible decision to
> pick Go instead. This is happening everywhere I look, and if not Go, then Rust.

I'm not convinced that "drive by" patch submissions are those we seek.
As stated, libvirt is a fairly complex project. I would think drive by
submissions lead to more problems regardless of the language chosen
because a reviewer spends so much of his/her valuable time trying to
assist the new contributor only to eventually learn that it is a drive
by. Then those that are committed to the project are left to decide to
drop the drive by submission or support it for years to come. Invariably
there's some integration interaction that was missed.

I would hope our long term goal would be build up not only contributors,
but more importantly reviewers. Again, doesn't matter what language is
chosen, since libvirt has review requirements then it needs reviewers.
If GO is a language from which to draw new contributors and more
importantly reviewers, then great.

With respect to the limited pool of C developers able to do a good job
in C - by flipping a switch to GO what kind of confidence level do you
have that new wealth of talent will have the necessary skills/experience
and/or desire to understand the nuances that do exist for project like
libvirt and in particular the complicated libvirtd problem to be solved?
Maybe it's a bit of 'bias' and terminology, but I've always thought
there is a difference between programmer and software engineer. My FUD
is that we attract too many of the former and not enough of the latter
that are necessary to solve that complex issue.

There are certain "things" you learn through years of trial and error
that perhaps are "less important" at the application level. It seems
today the theory is if an App crashes - so what, restart it. That's not
something for library, daemon, or OS development. If a Daemon crashes,
oh crap... host crashes, oh double crap. Once you do this long enough
you get involved in many aspects of OS, daemon, and library code such as
timing, threads, inter-process communication, locking, fd/socket mgmt,
backdoor hooks, etc. Does GO make those less relevant or just shift the
onus to learn the language and its limitations and quirks? Yes, I
understand C is callable from it, but if the long term goal is C
independence, then we ought to weigh and understand the risks before
jumping into the ocean.

> 
> We push up against the boundaries of what's sane todo in C in other ways too.
> For portability across operating systems, we have to rely on GNULIB to try
> to sanitize the platform inconsistencies where we use POSIX, and assume that
> any 3rd party libraries we use have done likewise.
> 
> Even then, we've tried to avoid using the platform APIs because their designs
> are often too unsafe to risk using directly (strcat, malloc, free), or are not
> thread safe (APIs lacking _r variants). So we build our own custom C platform
> library on top of the base POSIX system, re-inventing the same wheel that every
> other project written in C invents. Every time we have to do work at the core C
> platform level, it is diverting time away from doing working managing higher
> level concepts.
> 
> Our code is following an object oriented design in many areas, but such a notion
> is foreign to C, so we have to bolt a poor-mans OO framework on the side. This
> feeds back into the memory safety problem, because our OO invention cannot be
> type checked reliably at compile time, making it easy to do unsafe things with
> objects. It relies on reference counting because there's no automatic memory
> management.
> 
> The other big trend of the past 10 years has been the increase in CPU core
> counts. My first libvirt dev machine had 1 physical CPU with no cores or threads
> or NUMA. My current libvirt dev machine has 2 CPUs, each with 6 cores, for 12
> logical CPUs. Common server machines have 32/64 logical CPUs, and high end has
> 100's of CPUs. In 10 years, we'll see high end machines with 1000's of CPUs and
> entry level with mere 100's. IOW good concurrency is going to be key for any
> scalable application. Libvirt is actually doing reasonably well in this respect
> via our heavily threaded libvirtd daemon. It is not without cost though with
> ever more complex threading & locking models, which still have scalability
> problems. Part of the problem is that, despite Linux having very low overhead
> thread spawning, threads still consume non-trivial resources, so we try to
> constrain how many we use, which forces an M:N relationship between jobs we need
> to process and threads we have available.
> 

So GO's process/thread model is then lightweight?  What did they learn
that the rest of us ought to know! Or is this just a continuation of the
libvirtd discussion?

Still it seems the pendulum has swung back to hardware and software
needs to catch up. It used to be quantum leaps in processor speed as it
related to chip size/density - now it's just leaps in the ability to
partition/thread at the chip level. I'd hate to tell you about the boat
anchor I had on my desktop when I first started!

> 
> The Solution(s)
> ===============
> 
> Two fairly recent languages, Go & Rust, have introduced new credible options for
> writing systems applications without sacrificing the performance of C, while
> achieving the kind of ease of use / speed of development seen with languages
> like Python. It goes without saying that both of them are memory safe languages,
> immediately solving the biggest risk of using C / C++.
> 

If memory mgmt and security flaws are the driving force to convert to
GO, then can it be claimed unequivocally that GO will be the panacea to
solve all those problems? Even the best intentions don't always work out
the best. If as pointed out in someone else's response there have been
CVE's from/for GO centric apps - how many of those are GO related and
how many are App related? Not that it matters, but the point is we're
shifting some amount of risk for timely fixes elsewhere and shifting the
backwards compatible story elsewhere which could be the most
problematic. Not everyone has the same end goal for ABI/API
compatibility. Add to that the complexity of ensuring that a specific
version of some package you've based your product/reputation on.

Curious, is the performance rated vs. libc memory alloc/free or
something else? I don't recall ever being on a project that didn't have
some sort of way to "rewrite" the memory mgmt code. Whether it was shims
to handle project specific needs or usage of caches to avoid the awful
*alloc/free performance. Doing the GC is great, but what is the cost.
Perhaps something we don't know until we got further down that path.

> The particularly interesting & relevant innovation of Go is the concept of
> Goroutines for concurrent programming, which provide a hybrid kernel/userspace
> threading model. This lowers the overhead of concurrency to the point where you
> can consider spawning a new goroutine for each logical job. For example, instead
> of having a single thread or limited pool of threads servicing all QEMU monitor
> sockets & API clients, can you afford to have a new goroutine dedicated to each
> monitor socket and API client. That has the potential to dramatically simplify
> use of concurrency while at the same time allowing the code to make even better
> use of CPUs with massive core counts.

Sounds promising and complicated, but is the risk of libvirt discovering
some flaw or limitation in goroutine's worth it?  IOW: Would libvirt be
blazing a new trail or are other consumers that have "helped" work
through the initial issues.

> 
> It of course provides a cross platform portable core library of features, and has
> a massive ecosystem of developers providing further 3rd party libraries for a
> wide variety of features. This means developers can focus more time on solving
> the interesting problems in their application space. The Go code is still low
> level enough that it can interface with C code easily. FFI calls to C APIs can be
> made inline in the Go code, with no need to switch out to write a low level
> binding in C itself. In many ways, Go can be said to have the ease of use, fast
> learning & safety of Python, combined with the expressiveness of C. IOW it is a
> better C than C.
> 

But still requiring a learning curve to get through the nuances. I think
you may be underestimating the learning curve, but I could be wrong. It
would seem to be far more than a google search (as pointed out in a
different response). It would probably also include gaining an
understanding how whatever 3rd party library was chosen works (but maybe
that's just the trust factor).

If there's so many Go developers out there - one would hope there would
a "swarm" willing to help convert existing projects from C to Go. ;-)

Oh, and license wise it would seem we'd have to be careful, true? At
least w/r/t attempting to utilize packages written or listed on the wiki
page link. From just a quick scan there, it seems to be numerous
"packages" available and some list difference licenses.

Also, once chosen what happens if/when issues or incompatibilities are
discovered in some package? Do we follow the same principle of GNULIB
and try to fix it ourselves or somehow work around it? As I've learned
through time - "how" someone else fixes a problem may not work out best
and the degree of importance of the problem can result in delays in
getting a resolution. Having some amount of control is nice and we just
have to weigh the risk(s) of giving some of that away.

> I don't have direct experiance in Rust, but it has the same kind of benefits over
> C as Go does, again without the downsides of languages like Python or Java. There
> are some interesting unique features to Rust that can be important to some apps.
> In particular it does not use garbage collection, instead the user must still do
> manual memory management as you would with C/C++. This allows Rust to be used in
> performance critical cases where it is unacceptable to have a garbage collector
> run. Despite a requirement for manual allocation/deallocation, Rust still
> provides a safe memory model. This approach of avoiding abstractions which will
> introduce performance overhead is a theme of Rust. The cost of such an approach
> is that development has a higher learning curve and ongoing cost in Rust, as
> compared to Go. 
> 
> I don't believe that the unique features of Rust, over Go, are important to the
> needs of libvirt. eg while for QEMU it would be critical to not have a GC
> doing asynchronous memory deallocation, this is not at all important to libvirt.
> In fact precisely the opposite, libvirt would benefit much more from having GC
> take care of deallocation, letting developers focus attention other areas. In
> general, as from having a memory safe language, what libvirt would most benefit
> from is productivity gains & ease of contribution. This is the core competancy
> of Go, and why it is the right choice for usage in libvirt.

Depends on the GC, right? Is GC context/scope based? or overall APP
based? There are certainly some particularly hairy uses of memory and
arguments in libvirt code.

> 
> The obvious question / difficulty is deciding how to adopt usage of a new
> language, without throwing everything away and starting from scratch. It needs
> to be possible for contributors to continue working on every other aspect of the
> project while adoption takes place over the long term. Blocking ongoing feature
> work for prolonged periods of time is not acceptable.
> 

Not an easy task because one way or another you're taking resources from
one pile to put on another pile. Throwing new resources at the problem
isn't necessarily the solution either because they need to "learn the
environment".

> There is also a question of scope of the work. A possible target would be to aim
> for 100% elimination of C in N years time (for a value of N that is certainly
> greater than 5, possibly as much as 10). There is a question of just whether that
> is a good use of resources, and even practical. In terms of management of KVM
> guests the bulk of ongoing development work, and complexity is in the libvirtd
> daemon. The libvirt.so library merely provides the remote driver client which is
> largely stable & unchanging. So with this in the mind the biggest benefits would
> be in tackling the daemon part of the code where all the complexity lives.

N = ∞ (infinity ;-))

> 
> As mentioned earlier, Go has a very effective FFI mechanism for calling C code
> from Go, and also allows Go code to be called from C. There are some caveats to
> be aware of with passing data between the languages, however, generally it is
> neccessary to copy data structures as C code is not permitted to derefence
> pointers that are owned by the Go GC system. There are two possible approaches
> to take, which can be crudely described as top down, or bottom up.
> 
> In the top down approach, the C file providing the main() method gets replaced
> by a Go file providing an equivalent main() method, which then simply does an
> FFI call to the existing libvirt C APIs to run the code. For example it would
> just call virNetServer APIs to setup the RPC layer. Effectively have a Go program
> where 90% of the code is an FFI call to existing libvirt C code. Then we would
> gradually iterate downwards converting increasing areas of C code to Go code.
> 
> In the bottom up approach, the program remains a C program, but we built .a files
> containing Go code for core pieces of functionality. The C code can thus call
> into this archive and end up executing Go code for certain pieces. Then we would
> gradually iterate upwards converting increasing areas of C code to Go code, until
> eventually reaching the top main() method.
> 
> Or a hybrid of both approaches can be taken. Whichever way is chosen is going to
> be a long process and many bumps in the road.
> 
> The best way to start, however, is probably to focus on a simple self-contained
> area of libvirt code. Specifically attack the virtlockd, and/or virtlogd daemons,
> converting them to use Go. This still need not be done in a "big bang". A first
> phase would be to develop the server side framework for handling our RPC protocol
> deserialization. This could then just dispatch RPC calls to the existing C impls.
> As a second phase, the RPC method impls would be converted to Go. Both of these
> daemons are small enough that the conversion would be possible across the time
> of a couple of releases. The hardest bit is likely ensuring compatibility for
> the re-exec() upgrade model they support, but this is none the less doable.
> The lessons learned in this would go a long way towards informing the best way
> to tackle the bigger task of the monolithic libvirtd (or equivalently the swarm
> of daemons the previous proposal suggests)
> 

It will take though "someone" who knows GO and libvirt well enough
start. At this time, I submit that pool of talent is quite limited. Not
necessarily GO contributors, but those that understand the libvirt build
system, how to mash things together, how to write good GO code, and what
types of considerations one has to make when developing at the OS,
daemon, and library level.

In the end I'm not sure I see a 'requirement' to switch to GO. It seems
more a 'strong desire' based primarily on the factors of GC,
availability of language packages (whether inherent or provided) and
some possibility that libvirt would attract more developers. It doesn't
seem like GO will "fix" something that cannot be resolved in C.

Thanks for the thought provoking topic and the new diversion!

John

> Regards,
> Daniel
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]