apiclarity VS linux

We'll install APIClarity into a Kubernetes cluster to test our API documentation. We're using a Kind cluster for demonstration purposes. Of course, if you have another Kubernetes cluster up and running elsewhere, all steps also work there.

If you go to APIClarity, the first thing you’ll see is the source code (Figure 1), followed by some documentation at the bottom.

This feature is available in the open-source tool APIClarity, as part of the OpenClarity initiative.

Hi, I would also like to add another tool I'm contributing to at work (cisco) called APIClarity [1]. It aims at reconstructing swagger specifications of REST microservices running in K8S, but can also be run locally.

This is a challenging task and we don't support OpenAPI v3 specs yet (we are working on it).

Feel free to have a look, and get ideas from it :)

We'll also be presenting it at next Kubecon 2022.

[1]: https://github.com/openclarity/apiclarity

For example, APIClarity is a tool that observes all of the API traffic within your Kubernetes environment. Based on traffic observation, APIClarity infers an OpenAPI description for those APIs. This is especially helpful if the API creator never defined or provided such a description. It also surfaces potential problems with existing APIs, such as requests made to undocumented, shadow APIs or continued use of deprecated, zombie APIs. If you’re getting started on the path toward OAS compliance, then tools like APIClarity can be a great source of insight and observability.

The fundamental first step to solving this problem is to create an API spec and use it to audit and document the APIs your apps use. Ideally, we would create an API spec simply by observing API traffic in real-world applications. In the past, there was no simple, scalable, and open-source tooling capable of doing this. Now, we have APIClarity—an open-source API traffic visibility tool for Kubernetes (K8s) clusters. It’s purpose-built to address the gap and enable API reconstruction through observation.

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...

So If we would only count code and not comments, it is only 9489 LoC Rust. Which would be about 0.03% and if we take all lines and not only LoC it would be around 0.05%

[0] https://github.com/XAMPPRocky/tokei

[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b401b621758e46812da...