annotate win64-msvc/include/capnp/rpc-twoparty.capnp @ 47:d93140aac40b

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