I can do this in bash but I always thought it would be more elegant to do a similar thing in C. I thought Plan 9 handled it more like this?
cat < /dev/tcp/localhost/22
SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_10.0
I think having a filesystem interface is pretty great, and plan9 showed it could be done. but having to describe all your io in the [database_key, open(), close(), read(), write(), seek()] interface. can be tricky and limiting for the developer. It is pretty great for the end user however. Having a single api for all io is a super power for adaptive access patterns.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about the bsd socket interface is how close it is to a fs interface. connect()/bind() instead of open(), recv()/send() instead ot read()/write() but it still uses file discripters so that stuff tends to work the same. We almost had it.
As much as I like BSD and as great an achievement that the socket interface was, I still think this was their big failure.
This seems to be a great general principle of api design! The best apis are those that are hated by the developer and loved by the end users.
No, just those loved by the API consumer. Negative emotions on one end doens't do anything positive.
In the case of plan9, not everything can be described elegantly in the filesystem paradigm and a lot of things end up having really awkward "ctl" files which you write command strings to that the fileserver needs to parse. It also handicaps performance due to the number of filesystem operation roundtrips you usually end up making.
Maybe if combined with something io_uring-esque, but the complexity of that wouldn't be very plan9-esque.
These are no different in principle than ioctl calls in *ix systems. The `ctl` approach is at least a proper generalization. Being able to use simple read/write primitives for everything else is nonetheless a significant gain.
Say, imagine an API where you need to provide an 1KiB string. The plan9 version would have to process the input byte for byte to sort out what the command was, then read the string to a dynamic buffer while unescaping it until it finds, say, the newline character.
The ioctl would just have an integer for the operation, and if it wanted to it could set the source page up for CoW so it didn't even have to read or copy the data at all.
Then we have to add the consideration of context switches: The traditional ioctl approach is just calling process, kernel and back. Under plan9, you must switch from calling process, to kernel, to fileserver process, to kernel, to fileserver process (repeat multiple times for multiple read calls), to kernel, and finally to calling process to complete the write. Now if you need a result you need to read a file, and so you get to repeat the entire process for the read operation!
Under Linux we're upset with the cost of the ioctl approach, and for some APIs plan to let io_uring batch up ioctls - the plan9 approach would be considered unfathomably expensive.
> The `ctl` approach is at least a proper generalization.
ioctl is already a proper generalization of "call operation on file with arguments", but because it was frowned upon originally it never really got the beauty-treatment it needed to not just be a lot of header file defines.
However, ioctl'ing a magic define is no different than writing a magic string.
You will still have the significant context switching overhead, and you will still need distinct write-then-read phases for any return value. Manual buffer sharing is also notably more cumbersome than having a kernel just look directly at the value, and the neat part of being able to operate these fileservers by hand from a shell is lost.
So while I don't disagree with you on a technical level, taking that approach seems like it misses the point of the plan9 paradigm entirely and converts it to a worse form of the ioctl-based approach that it is seen as a cleaner alternative to.
(I also have an entirely irrational love for the idea the singular /bin folder with no concept of $PATH, simply having everything you need bound on top... I hate $PATH and the gross profile scripts that go with it with a passion.)
That's really an easy special case of what's called containerization or namespacing on Linux-like systems. It's just how the system works natively in plan9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#/net
> Plan 9 does not have specialised system calls or ioctls for accessing the networking stack or networking hardware. Instead, the /net file system is used. Network connections are controlled by reading and writing control messages to control files. Sub-directories such as /net/tcp and /net/udp are used as an interface to their respective protocols.
> Combining the design concepts
> Though interesting on their own, the design concepts of Plan 9 were supposed to be most useful when combined. For example, to implement a network address translation (NAT) server, a union directory can be created, overlaying the router's /net directory tree with its own /net. Similarly, a virtual private network (VPN) can be implemented by overlaying in a union directory a /net hierarchy from a remote gateway, using secured 9P over the public Internet. A union directory with the /net hierarchy and filters can be used to sandbox an untrusted application or to implement a firewall.[43] In the same manner, a distributed computing network can be composed with a union directory of /proc hierarchies from remote hosts, which allows interacting with them as if they are local.
> When used together, these features allow for assembling a complex distributed computing environment by reusing the existing hierarchical name system
I remember first setting up NAT or IP masquerading around 1998. It seemed like an ugly hack and some custom protocols did not work.
I use a bunch of VPNs now and it still seems like a hack.
The Plan 9 way just seems very clean although you now have to secure the server more strongly because you are exporting filesystems from it and others are mounting it.
With that I mind I wish (the standard Unix gripe!) 9P had a more complex permissions model... 9P's flexibility and per-process namespaces get you a long way, but it's not a natural way to express them.
aye. this was my first thought too. I seem to recall older Windows doing something like the same thing -- e.g. internet controls tied to the same system as the files -- and that's how we got the 90s-2000s malware 'asplosion.
Where the elegance starts to fade for me is when you see all the ad hoc syntaxes for specifying what ta connect to and what to mount. I have no love for tcp!10.0.0.1!80 or #c or #I. I want to move away from parsing strings in trusted code, especially when that code is C.
I also have no love for "read a magic file to have a new connection added to your process".
9P is neat but utterly unprepared for modern day use where caching is crucial for performance.