| 
 | 1 | +---  | 
 | 2 | +state: Draft  | 
 | 3 | +start-date: 2024-07-07  | 
 | 4 | +author:  Rodrigo Arias Mallo <[email protected]>  | 
 | 5 | +---  | 
 | 6 | + | 
 | 7 | +# Dillo RFC 002 - Rule-based content manipulation  | 
 | 8 | + | 
 | 9 | +## Abstract  | 
 | 10 | + | 
 | 11 | +Defines a rule-based language to describe how to manipulate content as it is  | 
 | 12 | +fetched or requested by Dillo. This rule mechanism allows rewriting web pages,  | 
 | 13 | +traduce other file formats to HTML and also implementing new protocols. It  | 
 | 14 | +supersedes the current DPI infrastructure.  | 
 | 15 | + | 
 | 16 | +## Motivation  | 
 | 17 | + | 
 | 18 | +One of the shortcomings of the Dillo plugin mechanism (DPI) is that it can only  | 
 | 19 | +operate at the protocol level. That is, a program is assigned to a protocol, for  | 
 | 20 | +example "gemini:" and then all browsing that requests URIs of that protocol is  | 
 | 21 | +forwarded to the given plugin.  | 
 | 22 | + | 
 | 23 | +The drawback of this design is that it mixes the content with the protocol. In  | 
 | 24 | +the case of the Gemini protocol, the usual file format is Gemtext, which is  | 
 | 25 | +similar to Markdown. However, if a Gemtext file is fetched via HTTP or locally  | 
 | 26 | +via the "file:" protocol there is no current way to translate it into HTML, in  | 
 | 27 | +the same way a Gemini plugin would do.  | 
 | 28 | + | 
 | 29 | +Another problem with the current design is that it can only operate at the  | 
 | 30 | +granularity of complete requests. For example, the user clicks on a link that  | 
 | 31 | +opens a given protocol and that is forwarded to the given plugin, without any  | 
 | 32 | +other possibility.  | 
 | 33 | + | 
 | 34 | +By allowing plugins to be able to rewrite content on their own, they can use  | 
 | 35 | +information of the current request to determine how to perform the rewrite  | 
 | 36 | +process. For example, a plugin may only operate on a set of domains, or when  | 
 | 37 | +certain HTTP headers are in the response.  | 
 | 38 | + | 
 | 39 | +## Design considerations  | 
 | 40 | + | 
 | 41 | +The goals of the design is to have a flexible mechanism to describe how to  | 
 | 42 | +perform the manipulation while we keep it simple to understand for users.  | 
 | 43 | + | 
 | 44 | +### Rule language  | 
 | 45 | + | 
 | 46 | +Using a simple rule language we can build a set of rules that can be quickly  | 
 | 47 | +evaluated in runtime. These rules have the capability to run arbitrary commands  | 
 | 48 | +that the user specifies, which are capable of manipulating the traffic.  | 
 | 49 | + | 
 | 50 | +They can also operate in such a way that they behave as endpoints, so they can  | 
 | 51 | +implement protocols on their own.  | 
 | 52 | + | 
 | 53 | +### Performance  | 
 | 54 | + | 
 | 55 | +As users can add a long list of manipulations with complicated matching  | 
 | 56 | +criteria, we should ensure that we don't introduce a lot of overhead in each  | 
 | 57 | +request or response.  | 
 | 58 | + | 
 | 59 | +A way to avoid this overhead is by having a restricted set of rules that can  | 
 | 60 | +only operate on data that is already parsed by Dillo, so it doesn't have to be  | 
 | 61 | +parse by each plugin.  | 
 | 62 | + | 
 | 63 | +### Domain matching  | 
 | 64 | + | 
 | 65 | +Let's consider the case where we want to match a particular domain. If we let  | 
 | 66 | +each plugin determine if the domain has to be intercepted or not, that would  | 
 | 67 | +cause the execution of every plugin in each request. However, by having a single  | 
 | 68 | +hash table where we store plugins that should process that request, we can  | 
 | 69 | +determine where to reroute the request in O(1) time.  | 
 | 70 | + | 
 | 71 | +Similarly, we could allow users to match domains by using a regex, but that  | 
 | 72 | +would introduce a much larger cost, as we would have to match all the regex  | 
 | 73 | +rules for every request. A simple solution is to match the domain first, and  | 
 | 74 | +then use the regex to further restrict the match. This will distribute the  | 
 | 75 | +regex matching overhead among the domains.  | 
 | 76 | + | 
 | 77 | +### HTTP header matching  | 
 | 78 | + | 
 | 79 | +Rules may choose to match if a header is present (or absent), or if it is  | 
 | 80 | +present and it contains a given value. To avoid parsing again the HTTP headers,  | 
 | 81 | +we perform the parsing from Dillo and then match the rules.  | 
 | 82 | + | 
 | 83 | +Only the rules that match the domain (with the optional domain regex) or the  | 
 | 84 | +ones that are for any domain should be processed here.  | 
 | 85 | + | 
 | 86 | +## Implementation details  | 
 | 87 | + | 
 | 88 | +Dillo currently builds a chain of modules that performs some processing on the  | 
 | 89 | +incoming and outgoing data:  | 
 | 90 | + | 
 | 91 | + | 
 | 92 | +    (0)  +--------+(1) +-------+(2) +------+(3) +-------+  | 
 | 93 | +    ---->| TLS IO |--->|  IO   |--->| HTTP |--->| CACHE |-...  | 
 | 94 | +    Net  +--------+    +-------+    +------+    +-------+  | 
 | 95 | +         src/tls.c     src/IO.c     src/http.c  src/capi.c  | 
 | 96 | + | 
 | 97 | +The user should be able to decide at which stage the rules are hooked. For  | 
 | 98 | +example, at (0) we TLS traffic is still encrypted, so there is only a limited  | 
 | 99 | +actions that can be done there.  | 
 | 100 | + | 
 | 101 | +At (1,2) we see the HTTP traffic, but it is still compressed (if any). At (3) we  | 
 | 102 | +see it uncompressed, and is the last step before being cached.  | 
 | 103 | + | 
 | 104 | +Here is an example where we introduce a new module "SED" that sees the incoming  | 
 | 105 | +uncompressed HTTP traffic and can perform modifications:  | 
 | 106 | + | 
 | 107 | +    Net  +--------+    +-------+    +------+    +=====+    +-------+  | 
 | 108 | +    ---->| TLS IO |--->|  IO   |--->| HTTP |---># SED #--->| CACHE |-...  | 
 | 109 | +         +--------+    +-------+    +------+    +=====+    +-------+  | 
 | 110 | +         src/tls.c     src/IO.c     src/http.c     |       src/capi.c  | 
 | 111 | +                                                   |  | 
 | 112 | +                                              +---------+  | 
 | 113 | +                                              | rulesrc |  | 
 | 114 | +                                              | ...     |  | 
 | 115 | +                                              +---------+  | 
 | 116 | + | 
 | 117 | +## Feature creep  | 
 | 118 | + | 
 | 119 | +This design introduces more complexity in the Dillo code base. However, trying  | 
 | 120 | +to manage this feature outside Dillo doesn't seem to be possible, as we need to  | 
 | 121 | +be able to reroute traffic on the different layers.  | 
 | 122 | + | 
 | 123 | +On the other hand, we can design the rule language in such a way that we only  | 
 | 124 | +allow operations that are quick to evaluate in runtime to reduce the overhead.  | 
 | 125 | + | 
 | 126 | +## Validation  | 
 | 127 | + | 
 | 128 | +When implemented, we should be able to do the following:  | 
 | 129 | + | 
 | 130 | +- Rewrite HTML pages to correct bugs or introduce new content such as meta  | 
 | 131 | +  information in the `<head>` that is rewritten as visible HTML elements. An  | 
 | 132 | +  example of such elements are RSS feeds.  | 
 | 133 | + | 
 | 134 | +- Patch CSS per page. As we can hook the rules to match different properties, we  | 
 | 135 | +  can use them to inject new CSS rules or patch the given ones to the user  | 
 | 136 | +  liking. This allows fixing broken rules or use fallback features while we add  | 
 | 137 | +  support for new CSS features.  | 
 | 138 | + | 
 | 139 | +- Handle HTTP error status codes like 404 or 500 and redirect them to the web  | 
 | 140 | +  archive.  | 
 | 141 | + | 
 | 142 | +- Redirect JS-only pages to alternatives that can be rendered in Dillo,  | 
 | 143 | +  similarly as the [libredirect plugin](https://libredirect.github.io/).  | 
 | 144 | + | 
 | 145 | +- Replace the current limited DPI mechanism for plugins.  | 
0 commit comments