Io_uring, kTLS and Rust for zero syscall HTTPS server

> The io-uring crate doesn’t help much with this. The API doesn’t allow the borrow checker to protect you at compile time, and I don’t see it doing any runtime checks either.

I've seen comments like this before[1], and I get the impression that building a a safe async Rust library around io_uring is actually quite difficult. Which is sort of a bummer.

IIRC Alice from the tokio team also suggested there hasn't been much interest in pushing through these difficulties more recently, as the current performance is "good enough".

[1] https://boats.gitlab.io/blog/post/io-uring/

Think about it for a second. Why do we not have this problem with "synchronous" syscalls? When you call `read` you also "pass mutable borrow" of the buffer to the kernel, but it maps well into the Rust ownership/borrow model since the syscall blocks execution of the thread and there are no ways to prevent it in user code. With poll-based async model you side-step this issues since you use the same "sync" syscalls, but which are guaranteed to return without blocking.

For a completion-based IO to work properly with the ownership/borrow model we have to guarantee that the task code will not continue execution until it receives a completion event. You simply can not do it with state machines polled in user code. But the threading model fits here perfectly! If we are to replace threads with "green" threads, user Rust code will look indistinguishable from "synchronous" code. And no, the green threads model can work properly on embedded systems as demonstrated by many RTOSes.

There are several ways of how we could've done it without making the async runtime mandatory for all targets (the main reason why green threads were removed from Rust 1.0). My personal favorite is introduction of separate "async" targets.

Unfortunately, the Rust language developers made a bet on the unproved polling stackless model because of the promised efficiency and we are in the process of finding out whether the bet plays of or not.

No, this is a mistaken retelling of history. The Rust developers were not ignorant of IOCP, nor were they zealous about any specific async model. They went looking for a model that fit with Rust's ethos, and completion didn't fit. Aaron Turon has an illuminating post from 2016 explaining their reasoning: https://aturon.github.io/tech/2016/09/07/futures-design/

See the section "Defining futures":

There’s a very standard way to describe futures, which we found in every existing futures implementation we inspected: as a function that subscribes a callback for notification that the future is complete.

Note: In the async I/O world, this kind of interface is sometimes referred to as completion-based, because events are signaled on completion of operations; Windows’s IOCP is based on this model.

[...] Unfortunately, this approach nevertheless forces allocation at almost every point of future composition, and often imposes dynamic dispatch, despite our best efforts to avoid such overhead.

[...] TL;DR, we were unable to make the “standard” future abstraction provide zero-cost composition of futures, and we know of no “standard” implementation that does so.

[...] After much soul-searching, we arrived at a new “demand-driven” definition of futures.

I'm not sure where this meme came from where people seem to think that the Rust devs rejected a completion-based scheme because of some emotional affinity for epoll. They spent a long time thinking about the problem, and came up with a solution that worked best for Rust's goals. The existence of a usable io_uring in 2016 wouldn't have changed the fundamental calculus.

This is exactly what I meant when I wrote about the indirect influence from other languages. People may dress it up as much as they want, but it's clear that polling was the most important model at the time (outside of the Windows world) and a lot of design consideration was put into being compatible with it. The Rust async model literally uses the polling terminology in its most fundamental interfaces!

>this approach nevertheless forces allocation at almost every point of future composition

This is only true in the narrow world of modeling async execution with futures. Do you see heap allocations in Go on each equivalent of "future composition" (i.e. every function call)? No, you do not. With the stackfull models you allocate a full stack for your task and you model function calls as plain function calls without any future composition shenaniganry.

Yes, the stackless model is more efficient memory-wise and allows for some additional useful tricks (like sharing future stacks in `join!`). But the stackfull model is perfectly efficient for 95+% of use cases, fits better with the borrow/ownership model, does not result in the `.await` noise, does not lead to the horrible ecosystem split (including split between different executors), and does not need the language-breaking hacks like `Pin` (see the `noalias` exception made for it). And I believe it's possible to close the memory efficiency gap between the models with certain compiler improvements (tracking maximum stack usage bound for functions and introducing a separate async ABI with two separate stacks).

>The existence of a usable io_uring in 2016 wouldn't have changed the fundamental calculus.

IIRC the first usable versions of io-uring very released approximately during the time when the Rust async was undergoing stabilization. I am really confident that if the async system was designed today we would've had a totally different model. Importance of completion-based models has only grown since then not only because of the sane async file IO, but also because of Spectre and Meltdown.