* We have a few functions to do with reading a netint, stashing
it somewhere, then moving into a different state. Is it worth
writing generic functions for that, or would it be too confusing?
* Duplicate block handling. Currently duplicate blocks are included in
the signature, but we only put the first duplicate block in the
hashtable so the delta only includes references to the first block.
This can result in sub-optimal copy commands, breaking single large
copies with duplicate blocks into multiple copies referencing the
earlier copy of the block. However, this could also make patching use
the disk cache more effectively. This solution is probably fine,
particularly given how small copy instructions are, but there might be
solutions for improving copy commands for long runs of duplicate blocks.
* Optimisations and code cleanups;
scoop.c: Scoop needs major refactor. Perhaps the API needs
tweaking?
rsync.h: rs_buffers_s and rs_buffers_t should be one typedef?
* Just how useful is rs_job_drive anyway?
mdfour.c: This code has a different API to the RSA code in libmd
and is coupled with librsync in unhealthy ways (trace?). Recommend
changing to RSA API?
* Don't use the rs_buffers_t structure.
There's something confusing about the existence of this structure.
In part it may be the name. I think people expect that it will be
something that behaves like a FILE* or C++ stream, and it really
does not. Also, the structure does not behave as an object: it's
really just a shorthand for passing values in to the encoding
routines, and so does not have a lot of identity of its own.
An alternative might be
result = rs_job_iter(job,
in_buf, &in_len, in_is_ending,
out_buf, &out_len);
where we update the length parameters on return to show how much we
really consumed.
One technicality here will be to restructure the code so that the
input buffers are passed down to the scoop/tube functions that need
them, which are relatively deeply embedded. I guess we could just
stick them into the job structure, which is becoming a kind of
catch-all "environment" for poor C programmers.
* Meta-programming
* Plot lengths of each function
* Some kind of statistics on delta each day
* Encoding format
* Include a version in the signature and difference fields
* Remember to update them if we ever ship a buggy version (nah!) so
that other parties can know not to trust the encoded data.
* abstract encoding
In fact, we can vary on several different variables:
* what signature format are we using
* what command protocol are we using
* what search algorithm are we using?
* what implementation version are we?
Some are more likely to change than others. We need a chart
showing which source files depend on which variable.
* Encoding implementation
* Join up signature commands
* Encoding algorithm
* Self-referential copy commands
Suppose we have a file with repeating blocks. The gdiff format
allows for COPY commands to extend into the *output* file so that
they can easily point this out. By doing this, they get
compression as well as differencing.
It'd be pretty simple to implement this, I think: as we produce
output, we'd also generate checksums (using the search block
size), and add them to the sum set. Then matches will fall out
automatically, although we might have to specially allow for
short blocks.
However, I don't see many files which have repeated 1kB chunks,
so I don't know if it would be worthwhile.
* Extended files
Suppose the new file just has data added to the end. At the
moment, we'll match everything but the last block of the old
file. It won't match, because at the moment the search block
size is only reduced at the end of the *new* file. This is a
little inefficient, because ideally we'd know to look for the
last block using the shortened length.
This is a little hard to implement, though perhaps not
impossible. The current rolling search algorithm can only look
for one block size at any time. Can we do better? Can we look
for all block lengths that could match anything?
Remember also that at the moment we don't send the block length
in the signature; it's implied by the length of the new block
that it matches. This is kind of cute, and importantly helps
reduce the length of the signature.
* State-machine searching
Building a state machine from a regular expression is a brilliant
idea. (I think *The Practice of Programming* walks through the
construction of this at a fairly simple level.)
In particular, we can search for any of a large number of
alternatives in a very efficient way, with much less effort than
it would take to search for each the hard way. Remember also the
string-searching algorithms and how much time they can take.
I wonder if we can use similar principles here rather than the
current simple rolling-sum mechanism? Could it let us match
variable-length signatures?
* Support gzip compression of the difference stream. Does this
belong here, or should it be in the client and librsync just have
an interface that lets it cleanly plug in?
I think if we're going to just do plain gzip, rather than
rsync-gzip, then it might as well be external.
* rsync-gzip: preload with the omitted text so as to get better
compression. Abo thinks this gets significantly better
compression. On the other hand we have to important and maintain
our own zlib fork, at least until we can persuade the upstream to
take the necessary patch. Can that be done?
abo says
It does get better compression, but at a price. I actually
think that getting the code to a point where a feature like
this can be easily added or removed is more important than the
feature itself. Having generic pre and post processing layers
for hit/miss data would be useful. I would not like to see it
added at all if it tangled and complicated the code.
It also doesn't require a modified zlib... pysync uses the
standard zlib to do it by compressing the data, then throwing
it away. I don't know how much benefit the rsync modifications
to zlib actually are, but if I was implementing it I would
stick to a stock zlib until it proved significantly better to
go with the fork.
* Licensing
Will the GNU Lesser GPL work? Specifically, will it be a problem
in distributing this with Mozilla or Apache?
* Checksums
* Do we really need to require that signatures arrive after the
data they describe? Does it make sense in HTTP to resume an
interrupted transfer?
I hope we can do this. If we can't, however, then we should
relax this constraint and allow signatures to arrive before the
data they describe. (Really? Do we care?)
* Allow variable-length checksums in the signature; the signature
will have to describe the length of the sums and we must compare
them taking this into account.
* Testing
* Just more testing in general.
* Test broken pipes and that IO errors are handled properly.
* Test files >2GB, >4GB. Presumably these must be done in streams
so that the disk requirements to run the test suite are not too
ridiculous. I wonder if it will take too long to run these
tests? Probably, but perhaps we can afford to run just one
carefully-chosen test.
* Fuzz instruction streams. <https://code.google.com/p/american-fuzzy-lop/>?
* Generate random data; do random mutations.
* Try different block lengths.
* Tests should fail if they can't find their inputs, or have zero
inputs: at present they tend to succeed by default.
* Test varying strong-sum inputs: default, short, long.
* Security audit
* If this code was to read differences or sums from random machines
on the network, then it's a security boundary. Make sure that
corrupt input data can't make the program crash or misbehave.
* Long files
* How do we handle the large signatures required to support large
files? In particular, how do we choose an appropriate block size
when the length is unknown? Perhaps we should allow a way for
the signature to scale up as it grows.
* Perhaps make extracted signatures still be wrapped in commands.
What would this lead to?
* We'd know how much signature data we expect to read, rather than
requiring it to be terminated by the caller.