annotate win32-mingw/include/capnp/rpc-twoparty.capnp @ 50:37d53a7e8262

Headers for KJ/Capnp Win32
author Chris Cannam
date Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:18:45 +0100
parents
children
rev   line source
Chris@50 1 # Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Sandstorm Development Group, Inc. and contributors
Chris@50 2 # Licensed under the MIT License:
Chris@50 3 #
Chris@50 4 # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
Chris@50 5 # of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
Chris@50 6 # in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
Chris@50 7 # to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
Chris@50 8 # copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
Chris@50 9 # furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
Chris@50 10 #
Chris@50 11 # The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
Chris@50 12 # all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Chris@50 13 #
Chris@50 14 # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
Chris@50 15 # IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
Chris@50 16 # FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
Chris@50 17 # AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
Chris@50 18 # LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
Chris@50 19 # OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
Chris@50 20 # THE SOFTWARE.
Chris@50 21
Chris@50 22 @0xa184c7885cdaf2a1;
Chris@50 23 # This file defines the "network-specific parameters" in rpc.capnp to support a network consisting
Chris@50 24 # of two vats. Each of these vats may in fact be in communication with other vats, but any
Chris@50 25 # capabilities they forward must be proxied. Thus, to each end of the connection, all capabilities
Chris@50 26 # received from the other end appear to live in a single vat.
Chris@50 27 #
Chris@50 28 # Two notable use cases for this model include:
Chris@50 29 # - Regular client-server communications, where a remote client machine (perhaps living on an end
Chris@50 30 # user's personal device) connects to a server. The server may be part of a cluster, and may
Chris@50 31 # call on other servers in the cluster to help service the user's request. It may even obtain
Chris@50 32 # capabilities from these other servers which it passes on to the user. To simplify network
Chris@50 33 # common traversal problems (e.g. if the user is behind a firewall), it is probably desirable to
Chris@50 34 # multiplex all communications between the server cluster and the client over the original
Chris@50 35 # connection rather than form new ones. This connection should use the two-party protocol, as
Chris@50 36 # the client has no interest in knowing about additional servers.
Chris@50 37 # - Applications running in a sandbox. A supervisor process may execute a confined application
Chris@50 38 # such that all of the confined app's communications with the outside world must pass through
Chris@50 39 # the supervisor. In this case, the connection between the confined app and the supervisor might
Chris@50 40 # as well use the two-party protocol, because the confined app is intentionally prevented from
Chris@50 41 # talking to any other vat anyway. Any external resources will be proxied through the supervisor,
Chris@50 42 # and so to the contained app will appear as if they were hosted by the supervisor itself.
Chris@50 43 #
Chris@50 44 # Since there are only two vats in this network, there is never a need for three-way introductions,
Chris@50 45 # so level 3 is free. Moreover, because it is never necessary to form new connections, the
Chris@50 46 # two-party protocol can be used easily anywhere where a two-way byte stream exists, without regard
Chris@50 47 # to where that byte stream goes or how it was initiated. This makes the two-party runtime library
Chris@50 48 # highly reusable.
Chris@50 49 #
Chris@50 50 # Joins (level 4) _could_ be needed in cases where one or both vats are participating in other
Chris@50 51 # networks that use joins. For instance, if Alice and Bob are speaking through the two-party
Chris@50 52 # protocol, and Bob is also participating on another network, Bob may send Alice two or more
Chris@50 53 # proxied capabilities which, unbeknownst to Bob at the time, are in fact pointing at the same
Chris@50 54 # remote object. Alice may then request to join these capabilities, at which point Bob will have
Chris@50 55 # to forward the join to the other network. Note, however, that if Alice is _not_ participating on
Chris@50 56 # any other network, then Alice will never need to _receive_ a Join, because Alice would always
Chris@50 57 # know when two locally-hosted capabilities are the same and would never export a redundant alias
Chris@50 58 # to Bob. So, Alice can respond to all incoming joins with an error, and only needs to implement
Chris@50 59 # outgoing joins if she herself desires to use this feature. Also, outgoing joins are relatively
Chris@50 60 # easy to implement in this scenario.
Chris@50 61 #
Chris@50 62 # What all this means is that a level 4 implementation of the confined network is barely more
Chris@50 63 # complicated than a level 2 implementation. However, such an implementation allows the "client"
Chris@50 64 # or "confined" app to access the server's/supervisor's network with equal functionality to any
Chris@50 65 # native participant. In other words, an application which implements only the two-party protocol
Chris@50 66 # can be paired with a proxy app in order to participate in any network.
Chris@50 67 #
Chris@50 68 # So, when implementing Cap'n Proto in a new language, it makes sense to implement only the
Chris@50 69 # two-party protocol initially, and then pair applications with an appropriate proxy written in
Chris@50 70 # C++, rather than implement other parameterizations of the RPC protocol directly.
Chris@50 71
Chris@50 72 using Cxx = import "/capnp/c++.capnp";
Chris@50 73 $Cxx.namespace("capnp::rpc::twoparty");
Chris@50 74
Chris@50 75 # Note: SturdyRef is not specified here. It is up to the application to define semantics of
Chris@50 76 # SturdyRefs if desired.
Chris@50 77
Chris@50 78 enum Side {
Chris@50 79 server @0;
Chris@50 80 # The object lives on the "server" or "supervisor" end of the connection. Only the
Chris@50 81 # server/supervisor knows how to interpret the ref; to the client, it is opaque.
Chris@50 82 #
Chris@50 83 # Note that containers intending to implement strong confinement should rewrite SturdyRefs
Chris@50 84 # received from the external network before passing them on to the confined app. The confined
Chris@50 85 # app thus does not ever receive the raw bits of the SturdyRef (which it could perhaps
Chris@50 86 # maliciously leak), but instead receives only a thing that it can pass back to the container
Chris@50 87 # later to restore the ref. See:
Chris@50 88 # http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/dist-confine.html
Chris@50 89
Chris@50 90 client @1;
Chris@50 91 # The object lives on the "client" or "confined app" end of the connection. Only the client
Chris@50 92 # knows how to interpret the ref; to the server/supervisor, it is opaque. Most clients do not
Chris@50 93 # actually know how to persist capabilities at all, so use of this is unusual.
Chris@50 94 }
Chris@50 95
Chris@50 96 struct VatId {
Chris@50 97 side @0 :Side;
Chris@50 98 }
Chris@50 99
Chris@50 100 struct ProvisionId {
Chris@50 101 # Only used for joins, since three-way introductions never happen on a two-party network.
Chris@50 102
Chris@50 103 joinId @0 :UInt32;
Chris@50 104 # The ID from `JoinKeyPart`.
Chris@50 105 }
Chris@50 106
Chris@50 107 struct RecipientId {}
Chris@50 108 # Never used, because there are only two parties.
Chris@50 109
Chris@50 110 struct ThirdPartyCapId {}
Chris@50 111 # Never used, because there is no third party.
Chris@50 112
Chris@50 113 struct JoinKeyPart {
Chris@50 114 # Joins in the two-party case are simplified by a few observations.
Chris@50 115 #
Chris@50 116 # First, on a two-party network, a Join only ever makes sense if the receiving end is also
Chris@50 117 # connected to other networks. A vat which is not connected to any other network can safely
Chris@50 118 # reject all joins.
Chris@50 119 #
Chris@50 120 # Second, since a two-party connection bisects the network -- there can be no other connections
Chris@50 121 # between the networks at either end of the connection -- if one part of a join crosses the
Chris@50 122 # connection, then _all_ parts must cross it. Therefore, a vat which is receiving a Join request
Chris@50 123 # off some other network which needs to be forwarded across the two-party connection can
Chris@50 124 # collect all the parts on its end and only forward them across the two-party connection when all
Chris@50 125 # have been received.
Chris@50 126 #
Chris@50 127 # For example, imagine that Alice and Bob are vats connected over a two-party connection, and
Chris@50 128 # each is also connected to other networks. At some point, Alice receives one part of a Join
Chris@50 129 # request off her network. The request is addressed to a capability that Alice received from
Chris@50 130 # Bob and is proxying to her other network. Alice goes ahead and responds to the Join part as
Chris@50 131 # if she hosted the capability locally (this is important so that if not all the Join parts end
Chris@50 132 # up at Alice, the original sender can detect the failed Join without hanging). As other parts
Chris@50 133 # trickle in, Alice verifies that each part is addressed to a capability from Bob and continues
Chris@50 134 # to respond to each one. Once the complete set of join parts is received, Alice checks if they
Chris@50 135 # were all for the exact same capability. If so, she doesn't need to send anything to Bob at
Chris@50 136 # all. Otherwise, she collects the set of capabilities (from Bob) to which the join parts were
Chris@50 137 # addressed and essentially initiates a _new_ Join request on those capabilities to Bob. Alice
Chris@50 138 # does not forward the Join parts she received herself, but essentially forwards the Join as a
Chris@50 139 # whole.
Chris@50 140 #
Chris@50 141 # On Bob's end, since he knows that Alice will always send all parts of a Join together, he
Chris@50 142 # simply waits until he's received them all, then performs a join on the respective capabilities
Chris@50 143 # as if it had been requested locally.
Chris@50 144
Chris@50 145 joinId @0 :UInt32;
Chris@50 146 # A number identifying this join, chosen by the sender. May be reused once `Finish` messages are
Chris@50 147 # sent corresponding to all of the `Join` messages.
Chris@50 148
Chris@50 149 partCount @1 :UInt16;
Chris@50 150 # The number of capabilities to be joined.
Chris@50 151
Chris@50 152 partNum @2 :UInt16;
Chris@50 153 # Which part this request targets -- a number in the range [0, partCount).
Chris@50 154 }
Chris@50 155
Chris@50 156 struct JoinResult {
Chris@50 157 joinId @0 :UInt32;
Chris@50 158 # Matches `JoinKeyPart`.
Chris@50 159
Chris@50 160 succeeded @1 :Bool;
Chris@50 161 # All JoinResults in the set will have the same value for `succeeded`. The receiver actually
Chris@50 162 # implements the join by waiting for all the `JoinKeyParts` and then performing its own join on
Chris@50 163 # them, then going back and answering all the join requests afterwards.
Chris@50 164
Chris@50 165 cap @2 :AnyPointer;
Chris@50 166 # One of the JoinResults will have a non-null `cap` which is the joined capability.
Chris@50 167 #
Chris@50 168 # TODO(cleanup): Change `AnyPointer` to `Capability` when that is supported.
Chris@50 169 }