Open Sources 2.0/Open Source: Competition and Evolution/A Tale of Two Standards
It was the best of protocols, it was the worst of protocols, it was the age of monopoly, it was the age of Free Software, it was the epoch of openness, it was the epoch of proprietary lock-in, it was the season of GNU, it was the season of Microsoft, it was the spring of Linux, it was the winter of Windows....
Samba is commonly used as the "glue" between the separate worlds of Unix and Windows, and because of that, Samba developers have to intimately understand the design and implementation decisions made in both systems. It is no surprise that Samba is considered one of the most difficult Free Software projects to understand and to join, outclassed in complexity only by the voodoo black art of Linux kernel development. Samba really isn't that hard, however, once you look at the different standards implemented in the two systems (although some of the decisions in Windows can cause raised eyebrows).
In developing Samba, we're creating a bridge between the most popular standards currently deployed in the computing world: the Unix/Linux standard of POSIX and the Microsoft-developed de facto standard of Win32. In this chapter, I will examine these two standards from an application programmer's perspective. In doing so, I thought it might be instructive to look at the reasons why each of them exists, what the intention for creating the particular standard might have been, and how well they have stood the test of time and the needs of programmers. A historical perspective is very important, as we look to the future and decide what standards we should encourage governments and businesses to support, and what effect this will have on the software landscape in the early 21st century.
Standard: (noun) A flag, banner, or ensign, especially. An emblem or flag of an army, raised on a pole to indicate the rallying point in battle.
The POSIX Standard
POSIX was named (like many things in the Unix software world) by Richard Stallman. It stands for Portable Operating System Interface-X, meaning a portable definition of a Unix-like operating system API. The reason for the existence of the POSIX standard is interesting and lies in the history of the Unix family of operating systems.
As is commonly known, Unix was created in 1969 at AT&T Bell Labs by Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie. Not originally designed for commercialization, the source code was shipped to universities around the world, most notably Berkeley in California. One of the world's first truly portable operating systems, Unix soon splintered into many different versions as people modified the source code to meet their own requirements. Once companies like Sun Microsystems and the original, prelitigious SCO (Santa Cruz Organization) began to commercialize Unix, the original Unix system call API remained the core of the Unix system, but each company added proprietary extensions to differentiate their own version of Unix. Thus began the first of the "Unix wars" (I'm a veteran, but I don't get disability benefits for the scars they caused). For independent software vendors (ISVs), such proprietary variants were a nightmare. You couldn't assume that code that ran correctly on one Unix would even compile on another.
During the late 1980s, in an attempt to create a common API for all Unix systems, and fix this problem, the POSIX set of standards was born. Because no one trusted any of the Unix vendors, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) shepherded the standards process and created the 1003 series of standards, known as POSIX. The POSIX standards cover much more than the operating system APIs, going into detail on system commands, shell scripting, and many other parts of what it means to be a Unix system. I'm only going to discuss the programming API standard part of POSIX here because, as a programmer, that's really the only part of it I care about on a day-to-day basis.
Few people have actually seen an official POSIX standard document, as the IEEE charges money for copies. Back before the Web became really popular, I bought one just to take a look at the real thing. It wasn't cheap (a few hundred dollars, as I recall). Amusingly enough, I don't think Linus Torvalds ever read or referred to it when he was creating Linux; he used other vendors' references to it and manpage descriptions of what POSIX calls were supposed to do.
Reading the POSIX standard document, however, is very interesting. It reads like a legal document; every line of every section is numbered so that it can be referred to in other parts of the text. It's detailed. Really detailed. The reason for such detail is that it was designed to be a complete specification of how a Unix system has to behave when called from an application program. The secret is that it was meant to allow someone reading the specification to completely reimplement their own version of a Unix operating system starting from scratch, with nothing more than the POSIX spec. The goal is that if someone writes an application that conforms to the POSIX specification, the resulting application can be compiled with no changes on any system that is POSIX compliant. There is even a POSIX conformance suite, which allows a system passing the tests to be officially branded a POSIX-compliant system. This was created to reduce costs in government and business procurement procedures. The idea was that you specified "POSIX compliant" in your software purchasing requests, the cheapest system that had the branding could be selected, and it would satisfy the system requirement.
This ended up being less useful than it sounds, given that Microsoft Windows NT has been branded POSIX compliant and generic Linux has not.
Sounds wonderful, right? Unfortunately, reality intruded its ugly head somewhere along the way. Vendors didn't want to give up their proprietary advantages, so each pushed to get its particular implementation of a feature into POSIX. As all vendors don't have implementations of all parts of the standard, this means that many of the features in POSIX are optional—usually just the one you need for your application. How can you tell if an implementation of POSIX has the feature you need? If you're lucky, you can test for it at compile time.
The GNU project suffered from these "optional features" more than most proprietary software vendors because the GNU software is intended to be portable across as many systems as possible. To make their software portable across all the weird and wonderful POSIX variants, the wonderful suite of programs known as GNU autoconf was created. The GNU autoconf system allows you to test to see whether a feature exists or works correctly before you even compile the code, thus allowing an application programmer to degrade missing functionality gracefully (i.e., not fail at runtime).
Unfortunately, not all features can be tested this way, as sometimes a standard can give too much flexibility, thus causing massive runtime headaches. One of the most instructive examples is in the pathconf() call. The function prototype for pathconf() looks like this :
long pathconf(char *path, int name);
Here, char *path is a pathname on the system and int name is a defined constant giving a configuration option you want to query. The constants causing problems are:
_PC_NAME_MAX queries for the maximum number of characters that can be used in a filename in a particular directory (specified by char *path) on the system. _PC_PATH_MAX queries for the maximum number of characters that can be used in a relative path from the particular directory. This seems fine until you consider how Unix filesystems are structured and put together. A typical Unix filesystem looks like Figure 3-1.
Any of the directory nodes, such as /usr/bin or /mnt, could be a different filesystem type, not the standard Unix filesystem (maybe even network mounted). In Figure 3-1, the /mnt/msdos_dir path has been mounted from a partition containing an old MS-DOS-style FAT filesystem type. The maximum directory entry length on such a system is the old DOS 8.3 maximum of 11 characters. But below the Windows directory could be mounted a different filesystem type with different maximum name restrictions— maybe an NFS mount from a different machine, for example, on the path /mnt/msdos_dir/nfs_dir. Now the pathconf() can accommodate these restrictions and tell your application about it—if you remember to call it on every single possible path and path component your application might use! Hands up, all application programmers who actually do this....Yes, I thought so. (You at the back, put your hand down. I know how you do things in the U.S. Star Wars missile defense program, but no one programs in ADA anymore, plus your tests never work, OK?) This is an example of something that looks good on paper but in practical terms almost no one would use in an actual application. I know we don't in Samba, not even in the "rewritten from scratch with correctness in mind" Samba4 implementation.
Now let's look at an example of where POSIX gets it spectacularly wrong, and why this happens.
First Implementation Past the Post
Any application program dealing with multiple access to files has to deal with file locking. File locking has several potential strategies, ranging from the "lock this file for my exclusive use" method, to the "lock these 4 bytes at offset 23 as I'm going to be reading from them soon" level of granularity. POSIX implements this kind of functionality via the fcntl() call, a sort of jack-of-all-trades for manipulating files (hence "fcntl → file control"). It's not important to know exactly how to program this call. Suffice it to say that a code fragment to set up such a byte range lock looks something like this:
int fd = open("/path/to/file", O_RDWR);
Now, set up the struct flock structure to describe the kind of byte range lock we need:
int ret = fcntl(fd, F_SETLKW, &flock_struct);
If ret is zero, we got the lock. Looks simple, right? The byte range lock we got on the region of the file is advisory. This means that other processes can ignore it and are not restricted in terms of reading or writing the byte range covered by the region (that's a difference from the Win32 way of doing things, in which locks are mandatory; if a lock is in place on a region, no other process can write to that region, even if it doesn't test for locks). An existing lock can be detected by another process doing its own fcntl() call, asking to lock its own region of interest. Another useful feature is that once the file descriptor open on the file (int fd in the previous example) is closed, the lock is silently removed. This is perfectly acceptable and a rational way of specifying a file locking primitive; just what you'd want.
However, modern Unix processes are not single threaded. They commonly consist of a collection of separate threads of execution, separately scheduled by the kernel. Because the lock primitive has a per-process scope, this means that if separate threads in the same process ask for a lock over the same area, it won't conflict. In addition, because the number of lock requests by a single process over the same region is not recorded (according to the spec), you can lock the region 10 times, but you need to unlock it only once. This is sometimes what you want, but not always: consider a library routine that needs to access a region of a file but doesn't know if the calling processes have the file open. Even if an open file descriptor is passed into the library, the library code can't take any locks. It can never know if it is safe to unlock again without race conditions.
This is an example of a POSIX interface not being future proofed against modern techniques such as threading. A simple amendment to the original primitive allowing a user-defined "locking context" (like a process ID) to be entered in the struct flock structure used to define the lock would have fixed this problem, along with extra flags allowing the number of locks per context to be recorded if needed.
But it gets worse. Consider the following code:
int second_fd; int ret; struct flock lock; int fd = open("/path/to/file", O_RDWR); /* Set up the "struct flock" structure to describe the kind of byte range lock we need. */ lock.l_type = F_WRLCK; lock.l_whence = SEEK_SET; lock.l_start = 0; lock.l_len = 4; lock.l_pid = getpid(); ret = fcntl(fd, F_SETLKW, &lock); /* Assume we got the lock above (ie. ret == 0). */ /* Get a second file descriptor open on the original file. Assume this succeeds. */ second_fd = dup(fd); /* Now immediately close it again. */ ret = close(second_fd);
What do you think the effect of this code on the lock created on the first file descriptor should be (so long as the close() call returns zero)? If you think it should be silently removed when the second file descriptor is closed, congratulations—you have the same warped mind as the people who implemented the POSIX spec. Yes, that's correct. Any successful close() call on any file descriptor referencing a file with locks will drop all the locks on that file, even if they were obtained on another, still-open file descriptor.
Let me be clear: this behavior is never what you want. Even experienced programmers are surprised by this behavior, because it makes no sense. After I've described this to Linux kernel hackers their responsse have been that of stunned silence, followed by "but why would it do that"?
The reason is historical and in my opinion, reflects a flaw in the POSIX standards process, one that hopefully won't be repeated in the future. By talking to longtime BSD hacker and POSIX standards committee member, Kirk McKusick (he of the BSD daemon artwork), I finally tracked down why this insane behavior was standardized by the POSIX committee. As he recalls, AT&T took the current behavior to the standards committee as a proposal for byte range locking, as this was how their current code implementation worked. The committee asked other ISVs if this was how locking should be done. The ISVs who cared about byte range locking were the large (at the time) database vendors, such as Oracle, Sybase, and Informix. All these companies did byte range locking within their own applications, and none of them depended on, or needed, the underlying operating system to provide locking services for them. So their unanimous answer was "we don't care." In the absence of any strong negative feedback on a proposal, the committee added it "as is" and took as the desired behavior the specifics of the first implementation, the brain-dead one from AT&T.
The "first implementation past the post" style of standardization has saddled POSIX systems with one of the most broken locking implementations in computing history. My hope is that eventually Linux will provide a sane superset of this functionality that can be adopted by other Unixes and eventually find its way back into POSIX.
OK, having dumped on POSIX enough, let's look at one of the things that POSIX really got right and that is an example worth following in the future.
One of the great successes of POSIX is the ease in which it has adapted to the change from 32-bit to 64-bit computing. Many POSIX applications were able to move to a 64-bit environment with very little or no change, and the reason for that is abstract types.
In contrast to the Win32 API (which even has a bit-size dependency in its very name), all of the POSIX interfaces are defined in terms of abstract datatypes. A file size in POSIX isn't described as a "32-bit integer" or even as a C-language type of unsigned int, but as the type off_t. What is off_t? The answer depends completely on the system implementation. On small or older systems, it is usually defined as a signed 32-bit integer (it's used as a seek position so that it can have a negative value), and on newer systems (Linux, for example) it's defined as a signed 64-bit integer. As long as applications are careful to cast integer types only to the correct off_t type and use these for file-size manipulation, the same application will work on both small and large POSIX systems.
This wasn't done all at once, because most commercial Unix vendors have to provide binary compatibility to older applications running on newer systems, so POSIX had to cope with both 32-bit file-sized applications running alongside newer 64-bit-capable applications on the new 64-bit systems. The way to make this work was determined by the Large File Support working group, which finished its work during the mid-1990s.
The transition to 64 bits was seen as a three-stage process. Stage one was the original old 32-bit applications; stage two was seen as a transitional stage, where new versions of the POSIX interfaces were introduced to allow newer applications to explicitly select 64-bit sizes, and stage three was where all the original POSIX interfaces default to 64-bit clean.
As is usual in POSIX, the selection of what features to support was made available using compile-time macro definitions that could be selected by the application writer. The macros used were:
If _LARGEFILE_SOURCE is defined, a few extra functions are made available to applications to fix the problems in some older interfaces, but the default file access is still 32 bit. This corresponds to stage one, described earlier.
If _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE is defined, a whole new set of interfaces is available to POSIX applications that can be explicitly selected for 64-bit file access. These interfaces explicitly allow 64-bit file access and have 64 coded into their names. So, open() becomes open64(), lseek() becomes lseek64(), and a new abstract datatype called off64_t is created and used instead of the off_t file-size datatype in such structures as struct stat64. This corresponds to stage two.
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS represents stage three; this macro can be undefined or set to the values 32 or 64. If undefined or set to 32, it corresponds to stage one (_LARGEFILE_SOURCE). If set to 64, all the original interfaces such as open() and lseek() are transparently mapped to the 64-bit clean interfaces. This is the end stage of porting to 64 bits, where the underlying system is inherently 64 bit, and nothing special needs to be done to make an application 64-bit aware. On a native 64-bit system that has no older 32-bit binary support, this becomes the default.
As you can see, if a 32-bit POSIX application had no embedded dependencies on file size, simply adding the compile-time flag -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 would allow a transparent port to a 64-bit system. There are few such applications, though, and Samba was not one of them. We had to go through the stage-two pain of using 64-bit interfaces explicitly (which we did around 1998) before we could track down all the bugs associated with moving to 64 bits. But we didn't have to rewrite completely, and I consider that a success of the underlying standard.
This is an example of how the POSIX standard was farsighted enough to define some interfaces that were so portable and clean that they could survive a transition of underlying native CPU word length. Few other standards can make that claim.
The POSIX standard has not been static; it has managed to evolve (although some would argue too slowly) over time. A major step forward was the establishment of the Single Unix Specification (SUS), which is a superset of POSIX developed in 1998 and adopted by all the major Unix vendors and shepherded by the Unix standards body, "the Open Group." It was a great leap forward when this specification was finally made available for free on the Web from the Open Group web site at http://www.unix.org. It certainly saved me from having to hunt down cheap POSIX specifications in secondhand bookshops in Mountain View, California.
The expanded SUS now covers such issues as real-time programming, concurrent programming via the POSIX thread (pthread) interfaces, and internationalization and localization, but unfortunately it does not cover file Access Control Lists (ACLs). Sadly, that specification was never fully agreed on, and so has never made it into the official documents. Interestingly enough, the SUS also doesn't cover the GUI elements, because the history of Unix as primarily a server operating system has meant that GUIs have never been given the priority necessary for Unix to become a desktop system.
Looking at what happened with ACLs is instructive when considering the future of POSIX and the SUS. Because ACLs were sorely needed in real-world environments, individual Unix vendors, such as SGI, Sun, HP, and IBM, added them to their own Unix variants. But without a true standards document, they fell into their old evil ways and added them with different specifications. Then along came Linux....
Linux changed everything. In many ways, the old joke is true: Linux is the Unix defragmentation tool. As Linux became more popular, programs originally written for other Unixes were first ported to it, and then after a while were written for it and then ported to other platforms. This happened to Samba. Sun's SunOS on a SPARC system was, at first, our primary user platform, but after five years or so we rapidly migrated to Linux on Intel x86 systems. We now develop almost exclusively on Linux, and from there port to other Unix systems.
This means the Linux interfaces are starting to take over as the most important standards for Unix-like systems to follow, in some ways supplanting POSIX and the SUS. The ACL implementation for Linux was added into the system, at first via a patch by Andreas Grünbacher, held externally to the main kernel tree. Finally it was adopted by the main Linux vendors, SuSE (now Novell) and Red Hat, and has become part of the official kernel. Other free Unix systems such as FreeBSD quickly followed with their own implementation of the last draft of the POSIX ACL specification, and now there are desktop GUI and other application programs that use the Linux ACL interfaces. As this code is ported to other systems, the pressure is on them to conform to the Linux APIs, not to any standards document. Sun has announced that its Solaris 10 on Intel release will run Linux applications "better than Linux" and will be fully compatible at the system call level with Linux applications. This means Sun must have mapped the Linux ACL interface onto the Solaris one. Is that a good thing?
In a world where Linux is rapidly becoming the dominant version of Unix, does POSIX still have relevance, or should we just assume Linux is the new POSIX?
The Win32 (Windows) Standard
Win32 was named for an expansion of the older Microsoft Windows interface, renamed the Win16 interface once Microsoft was shipping credible 32-bit systems. I have a confession to make. In my career, I completely ignored the original 16-bit Windows on MS-DOS. At that time, I was already working on sane 32-bit systems (68000 based), and dealing with the original insane 8086 segmented architecture was too painful to contemplate. Win32 was Microsoft's attempt to move the older architecture beyond the limitations of MS-DOS and into something that could compete with Unix systems—and to a large extent Microsoft succeeded spectacularly.
The original 16-bit Windows API added a common GUI on top of MS-DOS, and also abstracted out the lower-level MS-DOS interfaces so that application code had a much cleaner "C" interface to operating system services (not that MS-DOS provided many of those). The Win32 Windows API was actually the "application" level API (not the system call level; I'll discuss that in a moment) for a completely new operating system that would soon be known as Windows NT ("New Technology"). This new system was designed and implemented by Dave Cutler, the architect of Digital Equipment Corporation's VMS system, long a competitor to Unix. It does share some similarities with VMS. The interface choice for applications was very interesting, sitting on top of a system call interface that looks like Figure 3-2.
The idea behind the Windows NT kernel was that it could host several "subsystem" system call interfaces, providing completely different application behavior from the same underlying kernel. It was meant to be a completely customizable operating system, providing different kernel "personalities" any ISV might require. The DOS subsystem and the (not-shown) 16-bit Windows subsystem were essential, as they provided backward compatibility for applications running on MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows; the new operating system would have gathered little acceptance had it not been able to run all the old MS-DOS and Windows applications. The OS/2 subsystem was designed to allow users of text mode OS/2 applications (which was at one time a Microsoft product) to port them to Windows NT.
The two interesting subsystems are the original POSIX subsystem and the new Win32 subsystem. The POSIX subsystem was added, as the POSIX standard had become very prevalent in procurement contracts. Many of these valuable contracts were available only to systems that passed the POSIX conformance tests. So Microsoft added a minimal POSIX subsystem into the new Windows NT operating system. This original subsystem was, I think it's fair to say, deliberately crippled to make it unuseful for real-world applications: applications using it had no network access and no GUI access, so although a POSIX-compliant system might be required in a procurement contract, there usually was no requirement that the applications running on that system also had to be POSIX compliant. This allowed new applications using the Microsoft-preferred Win32 subsystem to be used instead. All might not have been lost if Microsoft had documented the internal subsystem interface, allowing third-party ISVs to create their own Windows NT kernel subsystems, but Microsoft kept this valuable information to itself (there was an exception to this, which I'll discuss shortly).
So, let's examine the Win32 standard API, the interface designed to run on top of the Win32 kernel subsystem. It would be logical to assume that, like the POSIX system calls, the calls defined in the Win32 API would closely map to kernel-level Win32 subsystem system calls. But that would be incorrect. It turns out that, when released, the Win32 subsystem system call interface was completely undocumented. The calls made from the application-level Win32 API were translated, via various shared libraries (DLLs in Windows parlance)—mainly the NTDLL.DLL library—into the real Win32 subsystem system calls.
Why do this, one might ask? Well, the official reasoning is that it allows Microsoft to tune and modify the system call layer at will, improving performance and adding features without being forced to provide backward compatibility application binary interfaces (or ABIs for short). The more nefarious reasoning is that it allows Microsoft applications to cheat, and call directly into the undocumented Win32 subsystem system call interface to provide services that competing applications cannot. Several Microsoft applications were subsequently discovered to be doing just that, of course. One must always remember that Microsoft is not just an operating system vendor, but also the primary vendor of applications that run on its platforms. These days, this is less of a problem, as there are several books that document this system call layer, and there are several applications that allow snooping on any Windows NT kernel calls made by applications, allowing any changes in this layer to be quickly discovered and published. But it left a nasty taste in the mouths of many early Windows NT developers (myself included).
The original Win32 application interface was, on the surface, very well documented and cheaply available in paper form (five books at only $20 each; a bargain compared to a POSIX specification). Like most things in Windows, on the surface it looks great. It covers much more than POSIX tries to standardize, and so offers flexible interfaces for manipulating the GUI, graphics, sound, and pen computing, as well as all the standard system services such as file I/O, file locking, threading, and security. Then you start to program with it. If you're used to the POSIX specifications, you almost immediately notice something is different. The details are missing. It's fuzzy on the details. You notice it the first time you call an API at runtime, and it returns an error that's not listed anywhere in the API documentation. "That's funny...." you think. With POSIX, all possible errors are listed in the return codes section of the API call. In Win32, the errors are a "rough guide."
The lack of detail is one of the reasons that the Wine project finds it difficult to create a working implementation of the Win32 API on Linux. How do you know when it's done? Remember that Linus, with some help, was able to create a decent POSIX implementation within a few years. The poor Wine developers have been laboring at this for 12 years, and it's still not finished. There's always one more wrinkle, one more undocumented behavior that some critical application depends on. Reminds me of Samba somehow, and for very similar reasons.
It's not entirely Microsoft's fault. It hasn't documented its API because it hasn't needed to. POSIX was documented in detail due to need: the need of the developers creating implementations of the standard. Microsoft knows that whatever it makes the API do in the next service pack, that's still the Win32 standard. "Wherever you go, there you are," so to speak.
However, the Win32 design does some things very well; security, for instance. Security isn't the number one thing people think of when considering Windows, but in the Win32 API, security is a very great concern. In Win32, every object can be secured, and a property called a Security Descriptor, which contains an ACL, can be attached to it. This means objects—such as processes, files, directories, and even Windows—can have ACLs attached. This is much cleaner than POSIX, in which only objects in the filesystem can have ACLs attached to them.
So, let's look at a Win32 ACL. As in POSIX, all users and groups are identified by a unique identifier. On POSIX, it's a uid_t type for users, and a gid_t type for groups. In Win32, both are of type SID or security identifier. A process or thread in Win32 has a token attached to it that lists the primary SID of the process owner and a list of secondary group SID entries this user belongs to. Like in POSIX, this is attached to a process at creation time and the owner can't modify it to give himself more privileges. A Win32 ACL consists of a list of SID entries with an attached bit mask identifying the operations this SID entry allows or denies. Sounds reasonable, right? But the devil is in the details (see Figure 3-3).
Each SID entry in an ACL can be an allow entry or a deny entry. Their order is important. Reorder a list of entries and swap a deny entry with an allow entry, and the meaning of the ACL can change completely. POSIX ACLs don't have that problem because the evaluation algorithm defines the order in which entries are examined. In addition, the flags defining the entry (marked as [f*] in Figure 3-3) control whether an entry is inherited when the ACL is attached to a "container object" (such as a directory in the filesystem) and may also affect other attributes of this particular entry.
The bit mask enumerates the permissions that this entry allows or denies. But the permissions are (naturally) different, depending on what object the ACL is attached to. Let's look at the kinds of permissions available for a file object:
- Delete the object.
- Read the ACL on an object.
- Write the ACL on an object.
- Read from the file.
- FILE_READ ATTRIBUTES
- Read file metadata.
- Read extended attributes (if the file has any).
- Write to the file.
- Write extended attributes (if the file has any).
- Open for execute (why do we need the .EXE tag then?).
- A permission related to an open file handle, not the file.
And this is one of the simpler kinds of permission-bearing objects in Win32.
If the Win32 API treats security so seriously, why does Windows fail most security tests in the real world? The answer is that most applications ignore this wonderful, flexible security mechanism because it's just too hard to use—just like the problem with the POSIX pathconf() call. No one can use the security mechanism correctly; applications would degenerate into a mess. It doesn't help that Microsoft, having realized the APIs controlling security were too difficult to use, keeps adding functions to simplify this mess, sometimes also adding new APIs with a new service pack. In addition, as Microsoft has moved in the "Active Directory" world, it has extended the underlying semantics of the security mechanism,adding new flags and behaviors.
Try taking a look at the "file security dialog" in Windows 2000. It's incomprehensible. No one, especially a system administrator, can keep track of this level of detail across their files. Everyone just sets one default ACL on the root of a directory hierarchy and hopes for the best. Most administrators usually want to do two simple things with an ACL: allow group X but not user Y, and allow group X and also user Z. This is just about comprehensible with POSIX ACLs, although those are near the limit of complexity that people can deal with. The Win32 security system is orders of magnitude more complex than that; it's hopelessly overdesigned. Computer scientists love it, as it's possible to do elegant little proofs of how secure it is, but in the real world, it's simply too much to deal with effectively—great idea, adding ACLs to every system object, but a real shame about the execution.
Just to spread the blame around, the networking "experts" who designed the latest version of Sun's network filesystem, NFS version 4, fell in love with this security mechanism and decided it would be a great idea to add it into the NFSv4 specification. They probably thought it would make interoperability with Windows easier. Of course, they didn't notice that Microsoft had been busily extending the security mechanism as Windows has developed, so they standardized on an old version of the Windows ACL mechanism, as Microsoft documented it (not as it actually works). So now, the Unix world has to deal with this mess—or rather, a new network filesystem with an ACL model that is almost, but not quite, compatible with Windows ACLs, and that is completely alien to anything currently found on Unix. I sometimes feel Unix programmers are their own worst enemies.
The Tar Pit: Backward Compatibility
Now, as an example of where Win32 got things spectacularly wrong, I want to look at a horror from the past that unfortunately got added into the Win32 interfaces due to the MS-DOS heritage. My pet hate with Win32 is the idea of "share modes" on open files. In my opinion, this one single legacy design decision has probably done more than any other to hold back the development of cluster-aware network filesystems on Win32 systems.
Under POSIX, an open() call is very simple. It takes a pathname to open, the way in which you want to access or create the file (read, write, or both with various create types), and a permission mask that gets applied to files you do create. Under Win32, the equivalent call, CreateFile(), takes seven parameters, and the interactions among them can be ferociously complex. The parameter that causes all the trouble is the ShareMode parameter, which can take values of any of the following constants OR'ed together:
- Allow others to open for read.
- Allow others to open for write.
- Don't allow any other opens.
- Allow open for delete intent.
To make these semantics work, any Windows kernel dealing with an open file has to know about every other application on the system that might have this file open. This was fine back in the single-machine MS-DOS days, when these semantics were first designed, but it is a complete disaster when dealing with a clustered filesystem in which a multitude of connected file servers may want to give remote access to the same file, even if they serve out the file read-only to applications. They have to consult some kind of distributed lock management system to keep these MS-DOS-inherited semantics working. While this can be done, it complicates the job enormously and means cluster communication on every CreateFile() and CloseHandle() Zcall.
This is the bane of backward compatibility. This idea of "share modes" arbitrating what access concurrent applications can have to a file is the cause of many troubles on a Windows system. Ever wonder why Windows has a mechanism built in to allow an application to schedule a file to be moved, but only after a reboot? Share modes in action. Why are some files on a Windows server system impossible to back up due to "another program is currently using this file" errors? Share modes again. There is no security permission that can prevent a user from opening a file with, effectively, "deny all" permissions. If you can open the file for read access, you can get a share mode on it, by design. Consider a network-shared copy of Microsoft Office. Any user must be able to open the file WINWORD.EXE (the binary file containing Microsoft Word) to execute it. Given these semantics, any user can open the file with READ_DATA access with the ShareMode parameter set to FILE_SHARE_NONE and thus block use of the file, even over the network. Imagine on a Unix system, being able to open the /etc/passwd file with a share mode and deny all other processes access. Watch the system slowly grind to a halt as the other processes get stuck in this tar pit....
World Domination, Fast
I've heaped enough opprobrium on Win32. Let's give it a break and consider something the designers really did get right, and one of the advantages it has over POSIX. I'm talking about the early adoption of the Unicode standard in Win32. When Microsoft was creating Win32, one of the things it realized was that this couldn't just be another English-only, American- and European-centric standard. It had to be able to not only cope with, but also encourage, applications written in all world languages (never accuse Microsoft of thinking small in its domination of the computing world).
Given those criteria, its adoption of Unicode as the native character set for all the system calls in Win32 was a stroke of genius. Even though the Asian countries aren't particularly fond of Unicode, because it merges several character sets they consider separate into one set of code points, Unicode is the best way to cope with the requirements of internationalization and localization in application development.
To allow older MS-DOS and Win16 applications to run, the Win32 API is available in two different forms, selectable by a compiler #define of -DUNICODE (it also helps if you own the compiler market for Windows, as Microsoft does, as you can standardize tricks like this). The older code-page-based applications call Win32 libraries that internally convert any string arguments to 16-bit Unicode and then call the real Win32 library interface, which, like the Windows NT kernel, is Unicode only.
In addition, Win32 comes with a full set of library interfaces to split out the text messages an application may need to display into resource files so that ISVs can easily have them translated for a target market. This eases the internationalization and localization burdens considerably for vendors.
What is more useful, but not as obvious, is that making the Win32 standard natively use Unicode meant developers were immediately confronted with the requirements of multilingual code development. Many applications written in English-speaking (or Western European eight-bit character set-compatible) countries are badly written, making the assumption that a character will always fit within one byte. The early versions of Samba definitely made that mistake and retrofitting multibyte character set handling into old code is a real bear to get right. I know, because I was the person who first had to work on this for Samba (later I got some much-needed help from Andrew), so I may be a little touchy on this subject.
Whenever I did Win32 development, I immediately designed with non-English languages in mind, and wrote everything with the abstract type TCHAR (one of the few useful abstract types in Win32), which is selectable at compile time using the Unicode defined to be either wchar_t with Unicode turned on, or unsigned char with Unicode turned off. Getting yourself in the right multibyte character set mindset from the beginning eliminates a whole class of bugs that you get when having to convert a quick "English-only" hacked-up program into something maintainable for different languages. POSIX has been catching up over the years with the iconv() functionality to cope with character set conversions, and Sun designed gettext() interfaces for localization, but Win32 had it all right from the start.
As with POSIX, the Win32 standard has not remained static over time. Microsoft has continued to develop and extend it, and has the advantage that anything it publishes immediately becomes the "standard," as is the case with all single vendor-defined standards.
However, Microsoft is attempting to deemphasize Win32 as it moves into its new .NET environment and the new world of "managed code." Managed code is code running under the control of an underlying virtual machine (called the Common Language Infrastructure, or CLI, in .NET) and can be made to prevent the direct memory access that is the normal mode of operation of an API designed for C coding, such as Win32 or POSIX. Free Software is also making a push into this area, with the Mono project, which implements the Microsoft C# language and .NET-managed code environment on Linux and other POSIX systems.
Even if Microsoft is as successful as it hopes to be in pushing ISV programmers to convert to .NET and managed code using its new C# language, the legacy of applications developed in C using the Win32 API will linger for decades to come. ISV programmers are an ornery lot, especially people who have mastered the Win32 API, due to its less-than-complete documentation.
What seems to happen over the years is that experienced Win32 programmers gain a sort of folk knowledge about the Win32 APIs—i.e., how they really work versus what the documentation says. I often hang out on Usenet Windows discussion groups, and the attitudes of the experienced Windows programmers are very interesting: they usually hate telling novices how stuff works. It's almost as if having learning Windows is a badge of honor, and they don't want to make earning that too easy for the neophytes. They exude an air of "they must suffer as I did."
As Microsoft becomes less interested in Win32 with the release of its new Longhorn Windows client and the move to managed code, is it possible for Microsoft to lose control of it? The POSIX standard is so complete because it was designed to allow programmers reading the standards documents to re-create a POSIX system from scratch. The Win32 standard is nowhere near as well documented as that. However, there is hope in the Wine project, which is attempting to re-create a version of the Win32 API that is binary compatible with Windows on Intel x86 systems. Wine is, in effect, a second implementation of the Win32 system, making it closer to a true vendor-independent standard. Efforts taking place at companies such as CodeWeavers and Transgaming Technologies are very promising; I just finished playing the new Windows-only game Half-Life 2 on my desktop Linux system, using the Wine technology. This is a significant achievement for the Wine code and bodes well for the future.
Choosing a Standard
Between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
So, what should we choose when examining what standards to support and develop applications for? What should we recommend to businesses and governments that are starting to look closely at the open source/free software options available?
It's important that businesses and governments selecting standards-based products pay attention to open standards. No more of the Microsoft Word .DOC format standard (which suffers from the same problem as Win32 in terms of it being single-vendor controlled). No de facto vendor standards, no matter how convenient. They need to select standards that are at the same level as POSIX—namely, standards to the level that other implementations can be created from the documentation. It's simple to tell when a standard meets that criterion because other implementations of it exist.
The interesting thing is that both POSIX and Win32 standards are now available on both systems. On Linux, we have the POSIX standard as native, and the Wine project provides a binary-compatible layer for compiled Win32 programs that can run many popular Win32 applications. Perhaps more interestingly for programmers, the Wine project also includes a Linux shared library, winelib, which allows Win32 applications to be built from source code form on POSIX systems. What you end up with is an application that looks like a native Windows application, but can be run on non-Intel platforms; something that early versions of Windows NT used to support, but now is restricted to x86-compatible processors. Taking your Win32 application and porting it using winelib is an easy way to get your feet wet in the POSIX world, although it won't look like a native Linux application (this may be a positive thing if your users are used to a Windows look and feel).
If you've already gone the .NET and C# route, using the Mono project may enable your code to run on POSIX systems.
On Windows, there is now a full POSIX subsystem, supported by Microsoft and available for free. Earlier I alluded to Microsoft's reluctance to release information on how to create new subsystems for the Windows NT kernel, but it turns out that earlier in its history Microsoft was not so careful. A small San Francisco-based company, Softway Systems, licensed the documentation and produced a product called OpenNT (later renamed Interix), which was a replacement for Microsoft's originally crippled POSIX subsystem. Unfortunately, OpenNT didn't sell very well; someone cruelly referred to it as having "all the application availability of Linux, with the stability of Windows." As the company was failing, Microsoft bought it (probably to bring the real gem of the Windows kernel subsystem interface knowledge back in-house) and used it to create its Services for Unix (SFU) product. SFU contains a full POSIX environment, with a software development kit allowing applications to be written that have access to networking and GUI APIs. The applications written under it run as full peers with the mature Win32 applications, and users can't tell the difference.
Recently Mcrosoft made SFU available as a free download to all Windows users. I like to think the free availability of Samba had something to do with this, but maybe I'm flattering the Samba team too much. As I like to say in my talks, "If you're into piloting Samba on Linux in your organization, you're paying too much for your Microsoft software." But what this means is that if you want to write a completely portable application, the one standard you can count on to be there and fully implemented and supported on Windows, Linux, Solaris, Apple Mac OS X, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX, and all the other Unix systems out there is POSIX.
So, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to look at porting parts of Samba to Windows....
- ↑ http://www.dictionary.com.
- ↑ To discover if this functionality was actually correctly used by any application program or if anything really depended on it, Andrew Tridgell, the original author of Samba, once hacked the kernel on his Linux laptop to write a kernel debug message if ever this condition occurred. After a week of continuous use, he found one message logged. When he investigated, it turned out to be a bug in the exportfs NFS file exporting command, whereby a library routine was opening and closing the /etc/exports file that had been opened and locked by the main exportfs code. Obviously, the authors didn't expect it to do that either.
- ↑ This was inspired by novice system administrators coming to Unix from the Windows platform for the first time and asking "where is the system defragmentation tool?", the concept of a filesystem designed well enough not to need one being outside their experience.