diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'user/jkoenig/java/proposal.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | user/jkoenig/java/proposal.mdwn | 629 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 629 deletions
diff --git a/user/jkoenig/java/proposal.mdwn b/user/jkoenig/java/proposal.mdwn deleted file mode 100644 index feb7e9dc..00000000 --- a/user/jkoenig/java/proposal.mdwn +++ /dev/null @@ -1,629 +0,0 @@ -[[!tag stable_URL]] - -# Java for Hurd (and vice versa) - -Contact information: - - * Full name: Jérémie Koenig - * Email: jk@jk.fr.eu.org - * IRC: jkoenig on Freenode and OFTC - -## Introductions - -I am a first year M.Sc. student -in Computer Science at University of Strasbourg (France). -My interests include capability-based security, -programming languages and formal methods -(in particular, object-capability languages and proof-carrying code). - -### Proposal summary - -This project would consist in improving Java support on Hurd. -The first part would consist in -fixing bugs and porting Java-related packages. -The second part would consist in -creating low-level Java bindings for the Hurd interfaces, -as well as libraries to make translator development easier. - -### Previous involvement - -I started contributing to Hurd last summer, -during which I participated to Google Summer of Code -as a student for the Debian project. -I worked on porting Debian-Installer to Hurd. -This project was mostly a success, -although we still have to use a special mirror for installation -with a few modified packages -and tweaked priorities -to work around some uninstallable packages -with Priority: standard. - -Shortly afterwards, -I rewrote the procfs translator -to fix some issues with memory leaks, -make it more reliable, -and improve compatibility with Linux-based tools -such as `procps` or `htop`. - -Although I have not had as much time -as I would have liked to dedicate to the Hurd -since that time, -I have continued to maintain the mirror in question, -and I have started to work -on implementing POSIX threads signal semantics in glibc. - -### Project-related skills and interests - -I have used Java mostly for university assignments. -This includes non-trivial projects -using threads and distributed programming frameworks -such as Java RMI or CORBA. -I have also used it to experiment with -Google App Engine -(web applications) -and Google Web Toolkit -(a compiler from Java to Javascript which helps with AJAX code), -and I have some limited experience with JNI -(the Java Native Interface, to link Java with C code). - -My knowledge of the Hurd and Debian GNU/Hurd is reasonable, -as the Debian-Installer and procfs projects -gave me the opportunity to fiddle with many parts of the system. - -Initially, -I started working on this project because I wanted to use -[Joe-E](http://code.google.com/p/joe-e/) -(a subset of Java) -to investigate the potential -[[applications of object-capability languages|objcap]] -in a Hurd context. -I also believe that improving Java support on Hurd -would be an important milestone. - -### Organisational matters - -I am subscribed to bug-hurd@g.o and -I do have a permanent internet connexion. - -I would be able to attend the regular IRC meetings, -and otherwise communicate with my mentor -through any means they would prefer -(though I expect email and IRC would be the most practical). -Since I'm already familiar with the Hurd, -I don't expect I would require too much time from them. - -My exams end on May 20 so I would be able to start coding -right at the beginning of the GSoC period. -Next year's term would probably begin around September 15, -so that would not be an issue either. -I expect I would work around 40 hours per week, -and my waking hours would be flexible. - -I don't have any other plans for the summer -and would not make any if my project were to be accepted. - -Full disclosure: -I also submitted a proposal to the Jikes RVM project -(which is a research-oriented Java Virtual Machine, -itself written in Java) -for implementing a new garbage collector into the MMTk subsystem. - -## Improve Java support - -### Justification - -Java is a popular language and platform used by many desktop and web -applications (mostly on the server side). As a consequence, competitive Java -support is important for any general-purpose operating system. -Better Java support would also be a prerequisite -for the second part of my proposal. - -### Current situation - -Java is currently supported on Hurd with the GNU Java suite: - - * [GCJ](http://gcc.gnu.org/java/), - the GNU Compiler for Java, is part of GCC and can compile Java - source code to Java bytecode, and both source code and bytecode to - native code; - * libgcj is the implementation of the Java runtime which GCJ uses. - It is based on [GNU Classpath](http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/). - It includes a bytecode interpreter which enables - Java applications compiled to native code to dynamically load and execute - Java bytecode from class files. - * The gij command is a wrapper around the above-mentioned virtual machine - functionality of libgcj and can be used as a replacement for the java - command. - -However, GCJ does not work flawlessly on Hurd.r -For instance, some parts of libgcj relies on -the POSIX threads signal semantics, which are not yet implemented. -In particular, this makes ant hang waiting for child processes, -which makes some packages fail to build on Hurd -(“ant” is the “make” of the Java world). - -### Tasks - - * **Finish implementing POSIX thread semantics** in glibc (high priority). - According to POSIX, signal dispositions should be global to a process, - while signal blocking masks should be thread-specific. Signals sent to the - process as a whole are to be delivered to any thread which does not block - them. By contrast, Hurd has per-thread signal dispositions and signals - sent to a process are delivered to the main thread only. I have been - working on refactoring the glibc signal code and implementing the POSIX - semantics as a per-thread option. However, due to lack of time I have not - yet been able to test and debug my code properly. Finishing this work - would be my first task. - * **Fix further problems with GCJ on Hurd** (high priority). While I’m not - aware of any other problems with GCJ at the moment, I suspect some might - turn up as I progress with the other tasks. Fixing these problems would - also be a high-priority task. - * **Port OpenJDK 6** (medium priority). While GCJ is fine, it is not yet - 100% complete. It is also slower than OpenJDK on architectures where a - just-in-time compiler is available. Porting OpenJDK would therefore - improve Java support on Hurd in scope and quality. Besides, it would also - be a good way to test GCJ, which is used for bootstrapping by the Debian - OpenJDK packages. Also note that OpenJDK 6 is now the default Java - Runtime Environment on all released Linux-based Debian architectures; - bringing Hurd in line with this would probably be a good thing. - * **Port Eclipse and other Java applications** (low priority). Eclipse is a - popular, state-of-the-art IDE and tool suite used for Java and other - languages. It is a dependency of the Joe-E verifier (see part 3 of this - proposal). Porting Eclipse would be a good opportunity to test GCJ and - OpenJDK. - -### Deliverables - - * The glibc pthreads patch and any other fixes on the Hurd side - would be submitted upstream - * Patches against Debian source packages - required to make them build on Hurd would be submitted - to the [Debian bug tracking system](http://bugs.debian.org/). - - -## Create Java bindings for the Hurd interfaces - -### Justification - -Java is used for many applications and often taught to -introduce object-oriented programming. The fact that Java is a -garbage-collected language makes it easier to use, especially for the less -experienced programmers. Besides, its object-oriented nature is a -natural fit for the capability-based design of Hurd. -The JVM is also used as a target for many other languages, -all of which would benefit from the access provided by these bindings. - -Advantages over other garbage-collected, object-oriented languages include -performance, type safety and the possibility to compile a Java translator to -native code and -[link it statically](http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Statically_linking_libgcj) -using GCJ, should anyone want to use a -translator written in Java for booting. -Note that Java is -[being](http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8757) -[used](http://oss.readytalk.com/avian/) -in this manner for embedded development. -Since GCJ can take bytecode as its input, -this expect this possibility would apply to any JVM-based language. - -Java bindings would lower the bar for newcomers -to begin experimenting with what makes Hurd unique -without being faced right away with the complexity of -low-level systems programming. - -### Tasks summary - - * Implement Java bindings for Mach - * Implement a libports-like library for Java - * Modify MIG to output Java code - * Implement libfoofs-like Java libraries - -### Design principles - -The principles I would use to guide the design -of these Java bindings would be the following ones: - - * The system should be hooked into at a low level, - to ensure that Java is a "first class citizen" - as far as the access to the Hurd's interfaces is concerned. - * At the same time, the memory safety of Java should be maintained - and extended to Mach primitives such as port names and - out-of-line memory regions. - * Higher-level interfaces should be provided as well - in order to make translator development - as easy as possible. - * A minimum amount of JNI code (ie. C code) should be used. - Most of the system should be built using Java itself - on top of a few low-level primitives. - * Hurd objects would map to Java objects. - * Using the same interfaces, - objects corresponding to local ports would be accessed directly, - and remote objects would be accessed over IPC. - -One approach used previously to interface programming languages with the Hurd -has been to create bindings for helper libraries such as libtrivfs. Instead, -for Java I would like to take a lower-level approach by providing access to -Mach primitives and extending MIG to generate Java code from the interface -description files. - -This approach would be initially more involved, and would introduces several -issues related to overcoming the "impedance mismatch" between Java and Mach. -However, once an initial implementation is done it would be easier to maintain -in the long run and we would be able to provide Java bindings for a large -percentage of the Hurd’s interfaces. - -### Bindings for Mach system calls - -In this low-level approach, my intention is to enable Java code to use Mach -system calls (in particular, mach_msg) more or less directly. This would -ensure full access to the system from Java code, but it raises a number of -issues: - - * the Java code must be able to manipulate Mach-level entities, such as port - rights or page-aligned buffers mapped outside of the garbage-collected - heap (for out-of-line transfers); - * putting together IPC messages requires control of the low-level - representation of data. - -In order to address these concerns, classes would be encapsulating these -low-level entities so that they can be referenced through normal, safe objects -from standard Java code. Bindings for Mach system calls can then be provided -in terms of these classes. Their implementation would use C code through the -Java Native Interface (JNI). - -More specifically, this functionality would be provided by the `org.gnu.mach` -package, which would contain at least the following classes: - - * `MachPort` would encapsulate a `mach_port_t`. (Some of) its constructors - would act as an interface for the `mach_port_allocate()` system call. - `MachPort` objects would also be instantiated from other parts of the JNI - C code to represent port rights received through IPC. The `deallocate()` - method would call `mach_port_deallocate()` and replace the encapsulated - port name with `MACH_PORT_DEAD`. We would recommend that users call it - when a port is no longer used, but the finalizer would also deallocate the - port when the `MachPort` object is garbage collected. - * `Buffer` would represent a page-aligned buffer allocated outside of the - Java heap, to be transferred (or having been received) as out-of-line - memory. The JNI code would would provide methods to read and write data at - an arbitrary offset (but within bounds) and would use `vm_allocate()` and - `vm_deallocate()` in the same spirit as for `MachPort` objects. - * `Message` would allow Java code to put together Mach messages. The - constructor would allocate a `byte[]` member array of a given size. - Additional methods would be provided to fill in or query the information - in the message header and additional data items, including `MachPort` and - `Buffer` objects which would be translated to the corresponding port names - and out-of-line pointers. - A global map from port names to the corresponding `MachPort` object - would probably be needed to ensure that there is a one-to-one - correspondence. - * `Syscall` would provide static JNI methods for performing system calls not - covered by the above classes, such as `mach_msg()` or - `mach_thread_self()`. These methods would accept or return `MachPort`, - `Buffer` and `Message` objects when appropriate. The associated C code - would access the contents of such objects directly in order to perform the - required unsafe operations, such as constructing `MachPort` and `Buffer` - objects directly from port names and C pointers. - -Note that careful consideration should be given to the interfaces of these -classes to avoid “safety leaks” which would compromise the safety guarantees -provided by Java. Potential problematic scenarios include the following -examples: - - * It must not be possible to write an integer at some position in a - `Message` object, and to read it back as a `MachPort` or `Buffer` object, - since this would allow unsafe access to arbitrary memory addresses and - mach port names. - * Providing the `mach_task_self()` system call would also provide access to - arbitrary addresses and ports by using the `vm_*` family of RPC operations - with the returned `MachPort` object. This means that the relevant task - operations should be provided by the `Syscall` class instead. - -Finally, access should be provided to the initial ports and file descriptors -in `_hurd_ports` and provided by the `getdport()` function, -for instance through static methods such as -`getCRDir()`, `getCWDir()`, `getProc()`, ... in a dedicated class such as -`org.gnu.hurd.InitPorts`. - -A realistic example of code based on such interfaces would be: - - import org.gnu.mach.MsgType; - import org.gnu.mach.MachPort; - import org.gnu.mach.Buffer; - import org.gnu.mach.Message; - import org.gnu.mach.Syscall; - import org.gnu.hurd.InitPorts; - - public class Hello - { - public static main(String argv[]) - /* Parent class for all Mach-related exceptions */ - throws org.gnu.mach.MachException - { - /* Allocate a reply port */ - MachPort reply = new MachPort(); - - /* Allocate an out-of-line buffer */ - Buffer data = new Buffer(MsgType.CHAR, 13); - data.writeString(0, "Hello, World!"); - - /* Craft an io_write message */ - Message msg = new Message(1024); - msg.setRemotePort(InitPorts.getdport(1)); - msg.setLocalPort(reply, Message.Type.MAKE_SEND_ONCE); - msg.setId(21000); - msg.addBuffer(data); - - /* Make the call, MACH_MSG_SEND | MACH_MSG_RECEIVE */ - Syscall.machMsg(msg, true, true, reply); - - /* Extract the returned value */ - msg.assertId(21100); - int retCode = msg.readInt(0); - int amount = msg.readInt(1); - } - } - -Should this paradigm prove insufficient, -more ideas could be borrowed from the -[`org.vmmagic`](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.151.5253&rep=rep1&type=pdf) -package used by [Jikes RVM](http://jikesrvm.org/), -a research Java virtual machine itself written in Java. - -### Generating Java stubs with MIG - -Once the basic machinery is in place to interface with Mach, Java programs -have more or less equal access to the system functionality without resorting -to more JNI code. However, as illustrated above, this access is far from -convenient. - -As a solution I would modify MIG to add the option to output Java code. MIG -would emit a Java interface, a client class able to implement the interface -given a Mach port send right, an a server class which would be able to handle -incoming messages. The class diagram below, although it is by no means -complete or exempt of any problem, illustrates the general idea: - -[[gsoc2011_classes.png]] - -This structure is somewhat reminiscent of -[Java RMI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_remote_method_invocation) -or similar systems, -which aim to provide more or less transparent access to remote objects. -The exact way the Java code would be generated still needs to be determined, -but basically: - - * An interface, corresponding to the header files generated by MIG, would - enumerate the operations listed in a given .defs files. Method names would - be transformed to adhere to Java conventions (for instance, - `some_random_identifier` would become `someRandomIdentifier`). - * A user class, corresponding to the `*User.c` files, - would implement this interface by doing RPC over a given MachPort object. - * A server class, corresponding to `*Server.c`, would be able to handle - incoming messages using a user-provided implementation of the interface. - (Possibly, a skeleton class providing methods which would raise - `NotImplementedException`s would be provided as well. - Users would derive from this class and override the relevant methods. - This would allow them not to implement some operations, - and would avoid pre-existing code from breaking when new operations are - introduced.) - -In order to help with the implementation of servers, some kind of library -would be needed to associate Mach receive rights with server objects and to -handle incoming messages on dedicated threads, in the spirit of libports. -This would probably require support for port sets at the level of the Mach -primitives described in the previous section. - -When possible, operations involving the transmission of send rights -of some kind would be expressed in terms of the MIG-generated interfaces -instead of `MachPort` objects. -Upon reception of a send right, -a `FooUser` object would be created -and associated with the corresponding `MachPort` object. -If the received send right corresponds to a local port -to which a server object has been associated, -this object would be used instead. -This way, -subsequent operations on the received send right -would be handled as direct method calls -instead of going through RPC mechanisms. - -Some issues will still need to be solved regarding how MIG will convert -interface description files to Java interfaces. For instance: - - * `.defs` files are not explicitly associated with a type. For instance in - the example above, MIG would have to somehow infer that io_t corresponds - to `this` in the `Io` interface. - * More generally, a correspondence between MIG and Java types would have - to be determined. Ideally this would be automated and not hardcoded - too much. - * Initially, reply port parameters would be ignored. However they may be - needed for some applications. - -So the details would need to be flushed out during the community bonding -period and as the implementation progresses. However I’m confident that a -satisfactory solution can be designed. - -Using these new features, the example above could be rewritten as: - - import org.gnu.hurd.InitPorts; - import org.gnu.hurd.Io; - import org.gnu.hurd.IoUser; - - class Hello { - static void main(String argv[]) throws ... - { - Io stdout = new IoUser(InitPorts.getdport(1)); - String hello = “Hello, World!\n”; - - int amount = stdout.write(hello.getBytes(), -1); - - /* (A retCode corresponding to an error - would be signalled as an exception.) */ - } - } - -An example of server implementation would be: - - import org.gnu.hurd.Io; - import java.util.Arrays; - - class HelloIo implements Io { - final byte[] contents = “Hello, World!\n”.getBytes(); - - int write(byte[] data, int offset) { - return SOME_ERROR_CODE; - } - - byte[] read(int offset, int amount) { - return Arrays.copyOfRange(contents, offset, - offset + amount - 1); - } - - /* ... */ - } - -A new server object could then be created with `new IoServer(new HelloIo())`, -and associated with some receive right at the level of the ports management -library. - -### Base classes for common types of translators - -Once MIG can target Java code, and a libports equivalent is available, -creating new translators in Java would be greatly facilitated. However, -we would probably want to introduce basic implementations of file system -translators in the spirit of libtrivfs or libnetfs. They could take the form -of base classes implementing the relevant MIG-generated interfaces which -would then be derived by users, -or could define a simpler interface -which would then be used by adapter classes -to implement the required ones. - -I would draw inspiration from libtrivfs and libnetfs -to design and implement similar solutions for Java. - -### Deliverables - - * A hurd-java package would contain the Java code developed - in the context of this project. - * The Java code would be documented using javadoc - and a tutorial for writing translators would be written as well. - * Modifications to MIG would be submitted upstream, - or a patched MIG package would be made available. - -The Java libraries resulting from this work, -including any MIG support classes -as well as the class files built from the MIG-generated code -for the Mach and Hurd interface definition files, -would be provided as single `hurd-java` package for -Debian GNU/Hurd. -This package would be separate from both Hurd and Mach, -so as not to impose unreasonable build dependencies on them. - -I expect I would be able to act as its maintainer in the foreseeable future, -either as an individual or as a part of the Hurd team. -Hopefully, -my code would be claimed by the Hurd project as their own, -and consequently the modifications to MIG -(which would at least conceptually depend on the Mach Java package) -could be integrated upstream. - -Since by design, -the Java code would use only a small number of stable interfaces, -it would not be subject to excessive amounts of bitrot. -Consequently, -maintenance would primarily consist in -fixing bugs as they are reported, -and adding new features as they are requested. -A large number of such requests -would mean the package is useful, -so I expect that the overall amount of work -would be correlated with the willingness of more people -to help with maintenance -should I become overwhelmed or get hit by a bus. - - -## Timeline - -The dates listed are deadlines for the associated tasks. - - * *Community bonding period.* - Discuss, refine and complete the design of the Java bindings - (in particular the MIG and "libports" parts) - * *May 23.* - Coding starts. - * *May 30.* - Finish implementing pthread signal semantics. - * *June 5.* - Port OpenJDK - * *June 12.* - Fix the remaining problems with GCJ and/or OpenJDK, - possibly port Eclipse or other big Java packages. - * *June 19.* - Create the bindings for Mach. - * *June 26.* - Work on some kind of basic Java libports - to handle receive rights. - * *July 3.* - Test, write some documentation and examples. - * *July 17 (two weeks).* - Add the Java target to MIG. - * *July 24.* - Test, write some documentation and examples. - * *August 7 (two weeks).* - Implement a modular libfoofs to help with translator development. - Try to write a basic but non-trivial translator - to evaluate the performance and ease of use of the result, - rectify any rough edges this would uncover. - * *August 22. (last two weeks)* - Polish the code and packaging, - finish writing the documentation. - - -## Conclusion - -This project is arguably ambitious. -However, I have been thinking about it for some time now -and I'm confident I would be able to accomplish most of it. - -In the event multiple language bindings projects -would be accepted, -some work could probably be done in common. -In particular, -[ArneBab](http://www.bddebian.com/~hurd-web/community/weblogs/ArneBab/2011-04-06-application-pyhurd/) -seems to favor a low-level approach for his Python bindings as I do for Java, -and I would be happy to discuss API design and coordinate MIG changes with him. -I would also have an extra month after the end of the GSoC period -before I go back to school, -which I would be able to use to finish the project -if there is some remaining work. -(Last year's rewrite of procfs was done during this period.) - -As for the project's benefits, -I believe that good support for Java -is a must-have for the Hurd. -Java bindings would also further the Hurd's agenda -of user freedom by extending this freedom to more people: -I expect the set of developers -who would be able to write Java code against a well-written libfoofs -is much larger than -those who master the intricacies of low-level systems C programming. -From a more strategic point of view, -this would also help recruit new contributors -by providing an easier path to learning the inner workings of the Hurd. - -Further developments -which would build on the results of this project -include my planned [[experiment with Joe-E|objcap]] -(which I would possibly take on as a university project next year). -Another possibility would be to reimplement some parts -of the Java standard library -directly in terms of the Hurd interfaces -instead of using the POSIX ones through glibc. -This would possibly improve the performance -of some Java applications (though probably not by much), -and would otherwise be a good project -for someone trying to get acquainted with Hurd. - -Overall, I believe this project would be fun, interesting and useful. -I hope that you will share this sentiment -and give me the opportunity to spend another summer working on Hurd. - |