• wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    my website’s backend is made with bash, it calls make for every request and it probably has hundreds of remote arbitrary code execution bugs that will get me pwned someday, it’s great

    edit: to clarify, it uses a rust program i made to expose the bash scripts as http endpoints, i’m not crazy enough to implement http in bash

    it behaves like a static file server, but if a file has the others-execute permission bit set it executes the file instead of reading it

    it’s surprisingly nice for prototyping since you can just write a cli program and it’s automatically available over http too

  • agilob@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    8 months ago

    Before nginx was a thing, I worked with a guy who forked apache httpd and wrote this blog in C, like, literally embedded html and css inside the server, so when he made a tpyo or was adding another post he had to recompile the source code. The performance was out of this world.

    • Schmeckinger@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There are a lot of solutions like that in rust. You basically compile the template into your code.

      • voxel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        yeah, templates can be parsed at compile time but these frameworks are not embeeding whole fucking prerendered static pages/assets

        • sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          They are nowadays. Compiling assets and static data into rust and deliver virtual DOM via websocket to the browser is the new cool kid in the corner.

          Have a look at dioxus

        • Schmeckinger@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Compiling all assets into the binary is trivial in rust. When I have a small web server that generates everything in code I usually compile the favicon into the binary.

    • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Does a file lookup really take that long? Id say the trick was to have just plain old html with no bloat and you’re golden.

      • agilob@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        8 months ago

        Blog content was stored in memory and it was served with zero-copy to the socket, so yea, it’s way faster. It was before times of php-fpm and opcache that we’re using now. Back then things were deployed and communicated using tcp sockets (tcp to rails, django or php) or reading from a disk, when the best HDDs were 5600rpm, but rare to find on shared hosting.

        • THE_STORM_BLADE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Couldn’t the html be loaded into memory at the beginning of the program and then served whenever? I understand the reading from disk will be slow, but that only happens once in the beginning.

          • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            There are plenty of sins people still commit and can commit when it comes to web development. Reading from disk is not the bottleneck. If site is slow most likely it’s not the disk read times, database access or anything similar, but silly code that generates the page. It’s almost always the code generating the page that’s at fault.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The answer is no. The more file is used the longer it sits in kernel filesystem cache. Getting file from cache versus having it in process memory is few function calls away all of which takes few microseconds. Which is negligible in comparison to network latency and other small issues that might be present in the code.

        On few of our services we decided to store client configuration in JSON files on purpose instead of running with some sort of database storage. Accessing config is insanely fast and kernel makes sure that file is cached so when reading the file you always get fast and latest version. That service is currently handling around 100k requests a day, but we’ve had peaks in past that went up to almost a million requests a day.

        Besides when it comes to human interaction and web sites you only need to get first contentful paint within one second. Anything above 1.5s will feel sluggish, but below 1s, it feels instant. That gives you on average around 800ms to send data back. Plenty of time unless you have a dependency nightmare and parse everything all the time.

    • Bazsalanszky@lemmy.toldi.eu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      This reminds me of one of my older projects. I wanted to learn more about network communications, so I started working on a simple P2P chat app. It wasn’t anything fancy, but I really enjoyed working on it. One challenge I faced was that, at the time, I didn’t know how to listen for user input while handling network communication simultaneously. So, after I had managed to get multiple TCP sockets working on one thread, I thought, why not open another socket for HTTP communication? That way, I could incorporate a fancy web UI instead of just a CLI interface.

      So, I wrote a simple HTTP server, which, in hindsight, might not have been necessary.

        • zaphod@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          He uses his own http server called gatling and an LDAP server instead of a database.

        • justJanne
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          He also uses his own http server that in turn queries the ldap server solely for the articles. The rest is compiled into the http server binary.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nothing good old cache can’t solve. Compile JS and CSS. Bundle CSS with main HTML file and send it in batches since HTTP2 supports chunkifying your output. HTTP prefers one big stream over multiple smaller anyway. So that guy was only inviting trouble for himself.

      • agilob@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        You’re telling me about compiling JS, to my story that is so old… I had to check. and yes, JS existed back then. HTTP2? Wasn’t even planned. This was still when IRC communities weren’t sure if LAMP is Perl or PHP because both were equally popular ;)

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Am just saying including source code into Apache is an overkill. But I guess if Apache was so old that doing so wasn’t much of a chore, sure thing. Still think apache module would have been simpler.

    • nxdefiant
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 months ago

      Have you considered embedding python in those bash scripts? I have done this, and it is glorious.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wrote my webserver in pure bash.

        bash -c “python -m http.server 8080”

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Did you know you can zip entire Python project into single file and make it executable? Quite a neat feature. Shove all dependencies, modules and assets in there and voila. Single file python application.

    • aes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      i already learned how to use my operating system, now you’re telling me I have to learn 30 new libraries that do the exact same shit?

      • bort@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        no, you’ll also have to learns each libraries special quirks on your OS

        • DreamButt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Fair enough. The line for me has always been whether or not I expect to use it for more than just glue or a one off run

    • philm@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      but effectively it’s bash, I think /bin/sh is a symlink to bash on every system I know of…

      Edit: I feel corrected, thanks for the information, all the systems I used, had a symlink to bash. Also it was not intended to recommend using bash functionality when having a shebang !#/bin/sh. As someone other pointed out, recommendation would be #!/usr/bin/env bash, or !#/bin/sh if you know that you’re not using bash specific functionality.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Still don’t do this. If you use bash specific syntax with this head, that’s a bashism and causes issues with people using zsh for example. Or with Debian/*buntu, who use dash as init shell.

        Just use #!/bin/bash or #!/usr/bin/env bash if you’re funny.

        • wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          #!/bin/bash doesn’t work on NixOS since bash is in the nix store somewhere, #!/usr/bin/env bash resolves the correct location regardless of where bash is

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Are there any distos with /usr/bin/env in a different spot? I still believe that’s the best approach for getting bash.

              • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I do think a simple symlink is superior to a tool parsing stuff. A shame POSIX choose this approach.

                Still the issue that a posix shell can be on a non-posix system and vice versa. And certificates versus used practice. Btw, isn’t there only one posix certified Linux distro? Was it Suse?

                • MenacingPerson@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Posix certification is dumb but posix compliance is nice to ensure some level of compatibility.

                  Symlinks would be pretty bad in the case of nixos. Wouldn’t fit at all

        • quantenzitrone@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          /bin/bash won’t work on every system for example NixOS some other systems may have bash in /usr/bin or elsewhere

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 months ago

        No no no no no, do not believe this you will shoot yourself in the foot.

        https://wiki.debian.org/Shell

        Beginning with DebianSqueeze, Debian uses Dash as the target of the /bin/sh symlink. Dash lacks many of the features one would expect in an interactive shell, making it faster and more memory efficient than Bash.

        From DebianSqueeze to DebianBullseye, it was possible to select bash as the target of the /bin/sh symlink (by running dpkg-reconfigure dash). As of DebianBookworm, this is no longer supported.

      • SurpriseWaterfall@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        It is a symlink, but bash will automatically enable posix compliance mode if you use it. So any bash specific features will bomb out unless you explicitly reset it in the script.

      • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Wut that is not even the case for Ubuntu. You’re probably thinking of dash example:

        sh -c '[[ true ]] && echo ya' 
        # sh: 1: [[: not found
        
        bash -c '[[ true ]] && echo ya' 
        # ya
        
      • callyral [he/they]@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        i thought most unix-like systems had it symlinked to a shell like dash. it’s what i have on my system (void linux), of course not as an interactive shell lol

        i use #!/bin/sh for posix scripts and #!/usr/bin/env bash for bash scripts. #!/bin/sh works for posix scripts since even if it’s symlinked to bash, bash still supports posix features.