Genode's Conscious C++ dialect

C++ is a power tool that scales from embedded systems to the most complex software stacks imaginable. When we started Genode in 2006, the feature set of the language was extremely persuasive. It strikes a great balance of giving the programmer full control whenever needed while also featuring means of expressing high-level software designs. This power is a two-edged sword though. In this series of postings, I'd like to share how we learned to handle it without regrets.

Two edges of the sword

On the one edge, the versatility of C++ is staggering. A programmer is free to express oneself via imperative programming, object-oriented programming, functional programming, meta programming, and the combinations of these paradigms! The industry-wide adoption is huge, thanks to the quality and diversity of tooling (e.g., diverse compiler vendors), the careful language standardization process, and the well-designed standard library.

On the other edge, C++ is widely criticised for its enormous complexity and safety risks. It has become so complex that even father figures like Scott Meyers have thrown the towel. The language's design seems to follow a principle of maximum risk. No risk, no fun, right? So we can dance on the volcano to the tune of manual memory management, integer overflows, implicit type conversions, implicitly called constructors, out-of-bounds array accesses, and rhythms of undefined behavior. The absence of an universally established coding-style convention and the clinging to archaic legacies from the C stone age like the preprocessor and C pointer arithmetics do not make the situation any better.

When looking from the sidelines, this dystopic picture suggests that C++ may be a lost cause. So people understandably seek salvation in alternatives like Rust. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however, we went a different route: Finding and tuning a custom C++ dialect that largely mitigates the safety traps and - compared to contemporary C++ projects - feels almost like a different language.

Genode's C++ dialect evolved primarily from an economic perspective. Earlier in the project, when haunted by memory-corruption problems or sporadic data-race conditions, operating-system development sometimes felt like the misery of spending only a miniscule fraction of the day with creating new and exciting things while 95 percent of the time went down the drain with the question: What the heck is going on? Worse, the most obnoxious bugs turned out to be shamefully mundane. Finding such an issue did not felt like a victory but rather a defeat. A missing lock guard, an off-by-one, a missing virtual destructor, an arithmetic overflow, or an uninitialized variable - a tiny artifact left in a weak moment and overlooked by reviewers - ensued sometimes days of hunting.

This got us thinking about systematic ways to cutting down these 95 percent. Two aspects fueled our optimism: First, Genode is a green-field project with no API below. So we are in the fairly unique position to make the rules! And second, our developer team of a tight-knit group of less than 10 people is small enough to agree on the same principles and conventions, and to follow them rigorously. Over the years, a stringent and strongly opinionated dialect of C++ evolved, which dramatically improved the situation.

Narrowing the scope to the operating-system level

Our dialect addresses operating-system (OS) code, not application code. These are two different worlds. Whereas application-level programmers are concerned about optimized code paths, cache locality, a high variety of data structures and the ability to swap them in-and-out, fine-tuned memory allocators, and convenience features, OS code is rather boring in these respects. With Genode's system-level code, we strive for minimizing complexity and maximizing robustness. This contradicts with the common wisdom that such low-level code must always be optimized for performance in the first place. But think about it: The OS is just a bureaucratic apparatus in-between the applications and the hardware. It doesn't do any meaningful work in terms of computation. It should be designed to not stand in the way of the application's performance. If the data structures within the OS became a bottleneck, the software design would call for improvement, not the data structures. This argument is especially true for a component-based system like Genode where traditional OS functionalities like protocol parsers or cryptographic functions are application-level concerns, hence lie outside the scope of our C++ dialect.

Banning hidden state and hidden side effects

Genode's C++ dialect deliberately starts at near-zero complexity. There is neither a C runtime, nor any trace of the C++ standard library. We start with the naked language. There is no notion of a main function, no implicit execution of global constructors, and no way for anonymous memory allocations. A tiny self-sufficient support library gives us support for exceptions and runtime type information (RTTI). The vocabulary of our dialect is then solely shaped by the self-sufficient Genode API, which is small enough to be understood in its entirety by a single developer.

In our dialect, a program is modelled as a state machine. There is no main function. Instead, the execution starts at a so-called Component::construct function that takes an interface to the component's environment ( env ) as argument. The env is the only way for the program to produce side effects like I/O or inter-component communication. The construct function constructs a Main object, forwarding the env as constructor argument. This object is the actual program. To convey the mental model behind it: The program is not viewed as a sequence of steps but rather viewed as an object that is composed out of its building blocks. Once the construct function returns, the program becomes ready to respond to external events, i.e., incoming inter-component communication (I/O). In a way, the program's flow of control is turned upside down compared to the traditional notion of a main function.

As an immediate consequence, any code of the program is executed within meaningful context. E.g., whenever a signal handler is invoked for the Main program, the handler is actually a method that can naturally access the members of the Main object. So the following rules become practical:

No singletons Whenever only a single instance of an object is needed, it can be hosted as a member of the Main object. No global variables There is always a natural context where the state can reside. No blocking I/O calls Instead of blocking for I/O, the component becomes receptive for I/O whenever returning to its idle state. With no blocking calls, there is no hidden state on the stack while blocking. No thread-local storage The context of any flow of execution is always the surrounding object ( Main object or a Thread object). No global constructors needed The program is explicitly constructed as the Main object. No anonymous memory allocations There exists no default new operator.

Unless the env (or parts thereof) is presented to a sub program, a sub program cannot have any side effects to the outside world. In particular, no I/O or dynamic memory allocation is possible in the sub program. Side effects can only be triggered with the explicit consent of the calling code by passing a corresponding interface to the sub program.

Static compositions, RAII, and exceptions are our friends

Genode's C++ dialect promotes the static composition of objects from other objects, with the Main object being the top level of a hierarchy. Code that is traditionally expressed as a sequence of statements is instead expressed as a sequence of class members. By composing the program as a hierarchy of aggregated members, the handling of errors becomes robust. Errors are exceptions that happen at construction time. Thanks to the RAII technique of C++, already constructed members of a partially constructed object are always orderly destructed. There are clear-cut transactional semantics. Either the object could be constructed successfully, or not at all. In both cases, the program eventually enters a consistent state.

The so-called Reconstructible pattern provides a way to reconstruct parts of the program while maintaining the program's static memory layout.

All data types are intrusive. That means that meta data is not allocated separately from the managed objects but stored within the respective objects. Containers, strings, and even Genode's XML generator and XML parser don't perform any dynamic memory allocations.

In cases where dynamic memory allocations are unavoidable, an allocator (e.g., a heap) must be explicitly created with the required env resources as an ingredient. Since memory allocations are deliberate and rare operations, the dialect fosters a strong sense of ownership over such dynamic allocations. Dynamically allocated objects are usually owned (remembered) by the allocating context. References to such objects never leave the scope of the owner. Whenever an allocated objected must be accessed from outside the owner, lambda functions are used as resource monitors.

There is much more to come...

This posting is meant to kick off a series of short articles, highlighting many different aspects of Genode's concious C++ dialect, ranging from stylistic considerations, over the avoidance of many C++ traps, to data-structure design. Stay tuned.

To get a taste of how the dialect looks in practice, consider examining the code of the fs_query component. With about 160 source lines (sloccount), it is reasonably small while doing meaningful work.