oso VS rr

Link to GitHub -->

Not OP but Authentication is easy, authorization is a cross-cutting concern that often requires custom code. E.g., there are people and teams, both of which can have different kinds of access to something (read/write). Sometimes teams have sub-teams. Do the sub-teams have access to the parent teams' resources and/or vice versa? Also what kind of sharing are you going to support? Do people have to have an account to view stuff shared to them or can you just send a link? There are some efforts to make custom DSLs for describing authorization policies, to avoid cross-cutting code[1].

Computed fields require different treatment at every level of the stack. This isn't inherently hard, but it is an extra feature these low-code/no-code platforms need. Where things get difficult is inn migrations. It's common for a field that is computed at the beginning to become customizable, or for the computation to change. When that happens, what should the value be for old columns? Computed fields also often pull data from multiple other tables, which may require some combination of custom queries and database optimization.

[1] https://github.com/osohq/oso

Oso and OpenFGA are two alternatives that implement Zanzibar-style authorisation.

There's Oso as well

Well this was fun to see! I'm the CTO of Oso, where we're building Polar (the second of the links mentioned https://docs.osohq.com/).

I have a few really minor nitpicks, so will try and make up for it by adding to the discussion :)

First of all, it doesn't really make sense to talk about Datalog as a good language for authorization, because much like with Prolog there doesn't really exist a single implementation of it. OPA's language Rego is a datalog variant, and Polar started out as a Prolog variant (although it's not really recognisable as one any more).

And that's an important point because otherwise it would be pretty reasonable to decide that: logic programming is good for authorization => you should go find the most battle-tested language out there and use that. For example, there's SWI Prolog [1] and Scryer Prolog [2] as two of my favourites.

To me, the thing that is mind-blowing about logic programming, is (a) how powerful the paradigm is, and (b) how concisely you can implement a logic programming language. Take miniKanren [3] which is a full-blown logic language in a few hundred lines of code.

In my mind, the original article makes a decent case that logic programming is a good fit for authorization. And just generally I love anyone bringing attention to that :)

But to me, the reason logic programming is such a solid foundation for authorization logic is the pieces you can build on top of it. For Polar, we've added:

- Types! So you can write authorization logic over your data types and help structure your logic. We've implemented this by simply adding an additional operator into the language that can check types

First time hearing about rhai, but there's a project in that space called Oso that's authored in Rust and uses a different DSL than Rego. You may or may not find it appealing.

Authentication is probably the aspect of it that's the weakest. Authorization has a few nice libs, with Oso probably being the nicest, but authentication is mostly roll your own from what I've seen.

> Hopefully Oso open source their library.

https://github.com/osohq/oso seems to have the core, C FFI, and language bindings.

Thanks! PHP is a highly requested language for us and we've been rolling them out based on demand. You can vote for it if you want here https://github.com/osohq/oso/issues/791

I think this tool must share a lot techniques and use cases with rr. I wonder how it compares in various aspects.

https://rr-project.org/

rr "sells" as a "reversible debugger", but it obviously needs the determinism for its record and replay to work, and AFAIK it employs similar techniques regarding system call interception and serializing on a single CPU. The reversible debugger aspect is built on periodic snapshotting on top of it and replaying from those snapshots, AFAIK. They package it in a gdb compatible interface.

Hermit also lists record/replay as a motivation, although it doesn't list reversible debugging in general.

Interesting. Perhaps you can inspect the disassembly of the function in question when using Graal and HotSpot. It is likely related to that.

Another debugging technique we use for heisenbugs is to see if `rr` [1] can reproduce it. If it can then that's great as it allows you to go back in time to debug what may have caused the bug. But `rr` is often not great for concurrency bugs since it emulates a single-core machine. Though debugging a VM is generally a nightmare. What we desperately need is a debugger that can debug both the VM and the language running on top of it. Usually it's one or the other.

> In general I’d argue you haven’t fixed a bug unless you understand why it happened and why your fix worked, which makes this frustrating, since every indication is that the bug exists within proprietary code that is out of my reach.

Were you using Oracle GraalVM? GraalVM community edition is open source, so maybe it's worth checking if it is reproducible in that.

[1]: https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr

https://rr-project.org/ had the same problem. They use the retired conditional branch counter instead of instruction counter, and then instruction steeping until at the correct address.

That'll work great for your Distributed QSort Incorporated startup, where the only product is a sorting algorithm.

Formal software verification is very useful. But what can be usefully formalized is rather limited, and what can be formalized correctly in practice is even more limited. That means you need to restrict your scope to something sane and useful. As a result, in the real world running thousands of tests is practically useful. (Well, it depends on what those tests are; it's easy to write 1000s of tests that either test the same thing, or only test the things that will pass and not the things that would fail.) They are especially useful if running in a mode where the unexpected happens often, as it sounds like this system can do. (It's reminiscent of rr's chaos mode -- https://rr-project.org/ linking to https://robert.ocallahan.org/2016/02/introducing-rr-chaos-mo... )

The approach of check-pointing computation such that it is resumable and restartable sounds similar to a time-traveling debugger, like rr or WinDbg:

https://rr-project.org/

https://learn.microsoft.com/windows-hardware/drivers/debugge...

https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr?tab=readme-ov-file#system-...