| --- | |
| layout: page | |
| title: Encoding Spec | |
| --- | |
| # Encoding Spec | |
| ## Organization | |
| ### 64-bit Words | |
| For the purpose of Cap'n Proto, a "word" is defined as 8 bytes, or 64 bits. Since alignment of | |
| data is important, all objects (structs, lists, and blobs) are aligned to word boundaries, and | |
| sizes are usually expressed in terms of words. (Primitive values are aligned to a multiple of | |
| their size within a struct or list.) | |
| ### Messages | |
| The unit of communication in Cap'n Proto is a "message". A message is a tree of objects, with | |
| the root always being a struct. | |
| Physically, messages may be split into several "segments", each of which is a flat blob of bytes. | |
| Typically, a segment must be loaded into a contiguous block of memory before it can be accessed, | |
| so that the relative pointers within the segment can be followed quickly. However, when a message | |
| has multiple segments, it does not matter where those segments are located in memory relative to | |
| each other; inter-segment pointers are encoded differently, as we'll see later. | |
| Ideally, every message would have only one segment. However, there are a few reasons why splitting | |
| a message into multiple segments may be convenient: | |
| * It can be difficult to predict how large a message might be until you start writing it, and you | |
| can't start writing it until you have a segment to write to. If it turns out the segment you | |
| allocated isn't big enough, you can allocate additional segments without the need to relocate the | |
| data you've already written. | |
| * Allocating excessively large blocks of memory can make life difficult for memory allocators, | |
| especially on 32-bit systems with limited address space. | |
| The first word of the first segment of the message is always a pointer pointing to the message's | |
| root struct. | |
| ### Objects | |
| Each segment in a message contains a series of objects. For the purpose of Cap'n Proto, an "object" | |
| is any value which may have a pointer pointing to it. Pointers can only point to the beginning of | |
| objects, not into the middle, and no more than one pointer can point at each object. Thus, objects | |
| and the pointers connecting them form a tree, not a graph. An object is itself composed of | |
| primitive data values and pointers, in a layout that depends on the kind of object. | |
| At the moment, there are three kinds of objects: structs, lists, and far-pointer landing pads. | |
| Blobs might also be considered to be a kind of object, but are encoded identically to lists of | |
| bytes. | |
| ## Value Encoding | |
| ### Primitive Values | |
| The built-in primitive types are encoded as follows: | |
| * `Void`: Not encoded at all. It has only one possible value thus carries no information. | |
| * `Bool`: One bit. 1 = true, 0 = false. | |
| * Integers: Encoded in little-endian format. Signed integers use two's complement. | |
| * Floating-points: Encoded in little-endian IEEE-754 format. | |
| Primitive types must always be aligned to a multiple of their size. Note that since the size of | |
| a `Bool` is one bit, this means eight `Bool` values can be encoded in a single byte -- this differs | |
| from C++, where the `bool` type takes a whole byte. | |
| ### Enums | |
| Enums are encoded the same as `UInt16`. | |
| ## Object Encoding | |
| ### Blobs | |
| The built-in blob types are encoded as follows: | |
| * `Data`: Encoded as a pointer, identical to `List(UInt8)`. | |
| * `Text`: Like `Data`, but the content must be valid UTF-8, and the last byte of the content must | |
| be zero. The encoding allows bytes other than the last to be zero, but some applications | |
| (especially ones written in languages that use NUL-terminated strings) may truncate at the first | |
| zero. If a particular text field is explicitly intended to support zero bytes, it should | |
| document this, but otherwise senders should assume that zero bytes are not allowed to be safe. | |
| Note that the NUL terminator is included in the size sent on the wire, but the runtime library | |
| should not count it in any size reported to the application. | |
| ### Structs | |
| A struct value is encoded as a pointer to its content. The content is split into two sections: | |
| data and pointers, with the pointer section appearing immediately after the data section. This | |
| split allows structs to be traversed (e.g., copied) without knowing their type. | |
| A struct pointer looks like this: | |
| lsb struct pointer msb | |
| +-+-----------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | |
| |A| B | C | D | | |
| +-+-----------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | |
| A (2 bits) = 0, to indicate that this is a struct pointer. | |
| B (30 bits) = Offset, in words, from the end of the pointer to the | |
| start of the struct's data section. Signed. | |
| C (16 bits) = Size of the struct's data section, in words. | |
| D (16 bits) = Size of the struct's pointer section, in words. | |
| Fields are positioned within the struct according to an algorithm with the following principles: | |
| * The position of each field depends only on its definition and the definitions of lower-numbered | |
| fields, never on the definitions of higher-numbered fields. This ensures backwards-compatibility | |
| when new fields are added. | |
| * Due to alignment requirements, fields in the data section may be separated by padding. However, | |
| later-numbered fields may be positioned into the padding left between earlier-numbered fields. | |
| Because of this, a struct will never contain more than 63 bits of padding. Since objects are | |
| rounded up to a whole number of words anyway, padding never ends up wasting space. | |
| * Unions and groups need not occupy contiguous memory. Indeed, they may have to be split into | |
| multiple slots if new fields are added later on. | |
| Field offsets are computed by the Cap'n Proto compiler. The precise algorithm is too complicated | |
| to describe here, but you need not implement it yourself, as the compiler can produce a compiled | |
| schema format which includes offset information. | |
| #### Default Values | |
| A default struct is always all-zeros. To achieve this, fields in the data section are stored xor'd | |
| with their defined default values. An all-zero pointer is considered "null"; accessor methods | |
| for pointer fields check for null and return a pointer to their default value in this case. | |
| There are several reasons why this is desirable: | |
| * Cap'n Proto messages are often "packed" with a simple compression algorithm that deflates | |
| zero-value bytes. | |
| * Newly-allocated structs only need to be zero-initialized, which is fast and requires no knowledge | |
| of the struct type except its size. | |
| * If a newly-added field is placed in space that was previously padding, messages written by old | |
| binaries that do not know about this field will still have its default value set correctly -- | |
| because it is always zero. | |
| #### Zero-sized structs. | |
| As stated above, a pointer whose bits are all zero is considered a null pointer, *not* a struct of | |
| zero size. To encode a struct of zero size, set A, C, and D to zero, and set B (the offset) to -1. | |
| **Historical explanation:** A null pointer is intended to be treated as equivalent to the field's | |
| default value. Early on, it was thought that a zero-sized struct was a suitable synonym for | |
| null, since interpreting an empty struct as any struct type results in a struct whose fields are | |
| all default-valued. So, the pointer encoding was designed such that a zero-sized struct's pointer | |
| would be all-zero, so that it could conveniently be overloaded to mean "null". | |
| However, it turns out there are two important differences between a zero-sized struct and a null | |
| pointer. First, applications often check for null explicitly when implementing optional fields. | |
| Second, an empty struct is technically equivalent to the default value for the struct *type*, | |
| whereas a null pointer is equivalent to the default value for the particular *field*. These are | |
| not necessarily the same. | |
| It therefore became necessary to find a different encoding for zero-sized structs. Since the | |
| struct has zero size, the pointer's offset can validly point to any location so long as it is | |
| in-bounds. Since an offset of -1 points to the beginning of the pointer itself, it is known to | |
| be in-bounds. So, we use an offset of -1 when the struct has zero size. | |
| ### Lists | |
| A list value is encoded as a pointer to a flat array of values. | |
| lsb list pointer msb | |
| +-+-----------------------------+--+----------------------------+ | |
| |A| B |C | D | | |
| +-+-----------------------------+--+----------------------------+ | |
| A (2 bits) = 1, to indicate that this is a list pointer. | |
| B (30 bits) = Offset, in words, from the end of the pointer to the | |
| start of the first element of the list. Signed. | |
| C (3 bits) = Size of each element: | |
| 0 = 0 (e.g. List(Void)) | |
| 1 = 1 bit | |
| 2 = 1 byte | |
| 3 = 2 bytes | |
| 4 = 4 bytes | |
| 5 = 8 bytes (non-pointer) | |
| 6 = 8 bytes (pointer) | |
| 7 = composite (see below) | |
| D (29 bits) = Size of the list: | |
| when C <> 7: Number of elements in the list. | |
| when C = 7: Number of words in the list, not counting the tag word | |
| (see below). | |
| The pointed-to values are tightly-packed. In particular, `Bool`s are packed bit-by-bit in | |
| little-endian order (the first bit is the least-significant bit of the first byte). | |
| When C = 7, the elements of the list are fixed-width composite values -- usually, structs. In | |
| this case, the list content is prefixed by a "tag" word that describes each individual element. | |
| The tag has the same layout as a struct pointer, except that the pointer offset (B) instead | |
| indicates the number of elements in the list. Meanwhile, section (D) of the list pointer -- which | |
| normally would store this element count -- instead stores the total number of _words_ in the list | |
| (not counting the tag word). The reason we store a word count in the pointer rather than an element | |
| count is to ensure that the extents of the list's location can always be determined by inspecting | |
| the pointer alone, without having to look at the tag; this may allow more-efficient prefetching in | |
| some use cases. The reason we don't store struct lists as a list of pointers is because doing so | |
| would take significantly more space (an extra pointer per element) and may be less cache-friendly. | |
| In the future, we could consider implementing matrixes using the "composite" element type, with the | |
| elements being fixed-size lists rather than structs. In this case, the tag would look like a list | |
| pointer rather than a struct pointer. As of this writing, no such feature has been implemented. | |
| A struct list must always be written using C = 7. However, a list of any element size (except | |
| C = 1, i.e. 1-bit) may be *decoded* as a struct list, with each element being interpreted as being | |
| a prefix of the struct data. For instance, a list of 2-byte values (C = 3) can be decoded as a | |
| struct list where each struct has 2 bytes in their "data" section (and an empty pointer section). A | |
| list of pointer values (C = 6) can be decoded as a struct list where each struct has a pointer | |
| section with one pointer (and an empty data section). The purpose of this rule is to make it | |
| possible to upgrade a list of primitives to a list of structs, as described under the | |
| [protocol evolution rules](language.html#evolving-your-protocol). | |
| (We make a special exception that boolean lists cannot be upgraded in this way due to the | |
| unreasonable implementation burden.) Note that even though struct lists can be decoded from any | |
| element size (except C = 1), it is NOT permitted to encode a struct list using any type other than | |
| C = 7 because doing so would interfere with the [canonicalization algorithm](#canonicalization). | |
| ### Inter-Segment Pointers | |
| When a pointer needs to point to a different segment, offsets no longer work. We instead encode | |
| the pointer as a "far pointer", which looks like this: | |
| lsb far pointer msb | |
| +-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | |
| |A|B| C | D | | |
| +-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | |
| A (2 bits) = 2, to indicate that this is a far pointer. | |
| B (1 bit) = 0 if the landing pad is one word, 1 if it is two words. | |
| See explanation below. | |
| C (29 bits) = Offset, in words, from the start of the target segment | |
| to the location of the far-pointer landing-pad within that | |
| segment. Unsigned. | |
| D (32 bits) = ID of the target segment. (Segments are numbered | |
| sequentially starting from zero.) | |
| If B == 0, then the "landing pad" of a far pointer is normally just another pointer, which in turn | |
| points to the actual object. | |
| If B == 1, then the "landing pad" is itself another far pointer that is interpreted differently: | |
| This far pointer (which always has B = 0) points to the start of the object's _content_, located in | |
| some other segment. The landing pad is itself immediately followed by a tag word. The tag word | |
| looks exactly like an intra-segment pointer to the target object would look, except that the offset | |
| is always zero. | |
| The reason for the convoluted double-far convention is to make it possible to form a new pointer | |
| to an object in a segment that is full. If you can't allocate even one word in the segment where | |
| the target resides, then you will need to allocate a landing pad in some other segment, and use | |
| this double-far approach. This should be exceedingly rare in practice since pointers are normally | |
| set to point to new objects, not existing ones. | |
| ### Capabilities (Interfaces) | |
| When using Cap'n Proto for [RPC](rpc.html), every message has an associated "capability table" | |
| which is a flat list of all capabilities present in the message body. The details of what this | |
| table contains and where it is stored are the responsibility of the RPC system; in some cases, the | |
| table may not even be part of the message content. | |
| A capability pointer, then, simply contains an index into the separate capability table. | |
| lsb capability pointer msb | |
| +-+-----------------------------+-------------------------------+ | |
| |A| B | C | | |
| +-+-----------------------------+-------------------------------+ | |
| A (2 bits) = 3, to indicate that this is an "other" pointer. | |
| B (30 bits) = 0, to indicate that this is a capability pointer. | |
| (All other values are reserved for future use.) | |
| C (32 bits) = Index of the capability in the message's capability | |
| table. | |
| In [rpc.capnp](https://github.com/capnproto/capnproto/blob/master/c++/src/capnp/rpc.capnp), the | |
| capability table is encoded as a list of `CapDescriptors`, appearing along-side the message content | |
| in the `Payload` struct. However, some use cases may call for different approaches. A message | |
| that is built and consumed within the same process need not encode the capability table at all | |
| (it can just keep the table as a separate array). A message that is going to be stored to disk | |
| would need to store a table of `SturdyRef`s instead of `CapDescriptor`s. | |
| ## Serialization Over a Stream | |
| When transmitting a message, the segments must be framed in some way, i.e. to communicate the | |
| number of segments and their sizes before communicating the actual data. The best framing approach | |
| may differ depending on the medium -- for example, messages read via `mmap` or shared memory may | |
| call for a different approach than messages sent over a socket or a pipe. Cap'n Proto does not | |
| attempt to specify a framing format for every situation. However, since byte streams are by far | |
| the most common transmission medium, Cap'n Proto does define and implement a recommended framing | |
| format for them. | |
| When transmitting over a stream, the following should be sent. All integers are unsigned and | |
| little-endian. | |
| * (4 bytes) The number of segments, minus one (since there is always at least one segment). | |
| * (N * 4 bytes) The size of each segment, in words. | |
| * (0 or 4 bytes) Padding up to the next word boundary. | |
| * The content of each segment, in order. | |
| ### Packing | |
| For cases where bandwidth usage matters, Cap'n Proto defines a simple compression scheme called | |
| "packing". This scheme is based on the observation that Cap'n Proto messages contain lots of | |
| zero bytes: padding bytes, unset fields, and high-order bytes of small-valued integers. | |
| In packed format, each word of the message is reduced to a tag byte followed by zero to eight | |
| content bytes. The bits of the tag byte correspond to the bytes of the unpacked word, with the | |
| least-significant bit corresponding to the first byte. Each zero bit indicates that the | |
| corresponding byte is zero. The non-zero bytes are packed following the tag. | |
| For example, here is some typical Cap'n Proto data (a struct pointer (offset = 2, data size = 3, | |
| pointer count = 2) followed by a text pointer (offset = 6, length = 53)) and its packed form: | |
| unpacked (hex): 08 00 00 00 03 00 02 00 19 00 00 00 aa 01 00 00 | |
| packed (hex): 51 08 03 02 31 19 aa 01 | |
| In addition to the above, there are two tag values which are treated specially: 0x00 and 0xff. | |
| * 0x00: The tag is followed by a single byte which indicates a count of consecutive zero-valued | |
| words, minus 1. E.g. if the tag 0x00 is followed by 0x05, the sequence unpacks to 6 words of | |
| zero. | |
| Or, put another way: the tag is first decoded as if it were not special. Since none of the bits | |
| are set, it is followed by no bytes and expands to a word full of zeros. After that, the next | |
| byte is interpreted as a count of _additional_ words that are also all-zero. | |
| * 0xff: The tag is followed by the bytes of the word (as if it weren't special), but after those | |
| bytes is another byte with value N. Following that byte is N unpacked words that should be copied | |
| directly. These unpacked words may or may not contain zeros -- it is up to the compressor to | |
| decide when to end the unpacked span and return to packing each word. The purpose of this rule | |
| is to minimize the impact of packing on data that doesn't contain any zeros -- in particular, | |
| long text blobs. Because of this rule, the worst-case space overhead of packing is 2 bytes per | |
| 2 KiB of input (256 words = 2KiB). | |
| Examples: | |
| unpacked (hex): 00 (x 32 bytes) | |
| packed (hex): 00 03 | |
| unpacked (hex): 8a (x 32 bytes) | |
| packed (hex): ff 8a (x 8 bytes) 03 8a (x 24 bytes) | |
| Notice that both of the special cases begin by treating the tag as if it weren't special. This | |
| is intentionally designed to make encoding faster: you can compute the tag value and encode the | |
| bytes in a single pass through the input word. Only after you've finished with that word do you | |
| need to check whether the tag ended up being 0x00 or 0xff. | |
| It is possible to write both an encoder and a decoder which only branch at the end of each word, | |
| and only to handle the two special tags. It is not necessary to branch on every byte. See the | |
| C++ reference implementation for an example. | |
| Packing is normally applied on top of the standard stream framing described in the previous | |
| section. | |
| ### Compression | |
| When Cap'n Proto messages may contain repetitive data (especially, large text blobs), it makes sense | |
| to apply a standard compression algorithm in addition to packing. When CPU time is scarce, we | |
| recommend [LZ4 compression](https://code.google.com/p/lz4/). Otherwise, [zlib](http://www.zlib.net) | |
| is slower but will compress more. | |
| ## Canonicalization | |
| Cap'n Proto messages have a well-defined canonical form. Cap'n Proto encoders are NOT required to | |
| output messages in canonical form, and in fact they will almost never do so by default. However, | |
| it is possible to write code which canonicalizes a Cap'n Proto message without knowing its schema. | |
| A canonical Cap'n Proto message must adhere to the following rules: | |
| * The object tree must be encoded in preorder (with respect to the order of the pointers within | |
| each object). | |
| * The message must be encoded as a single segment. (When signing or hashing a canonical Cap'n Proto | |
| message, the segment table shall not be included, because it would be redundant.) | |
| * Trailing zero-valued words in a struct's data or pointer segments must be truncated. Since zero | |
| represents a default value, this does not change the struct's meaning. This rule is important | |
| to ensure that adding a new field to a struct does not affect the canonical encoding of messages | |
| that do not set that field. | |
| * Similarly, for a struct list, if a trailing word in a section of all structs in the list is zero, | |
| then it must be truncated from all structs in the list. (All structs in a struct list must have | |
| equal sizes, hence a trailing zero can only be removed if it is zero in all elements.) | |
| * Any struct pointer pointing to a zero-sized struct should have an | |
| offset of -1. | |
| * Note that this applies _only_ to structs; other zero-sized values should have offsets | |
| allocated in preorder, as normal. | |
| * Canonical messages are not packed. However, packing can still be applied for transmission | |
| purposes; the message must simply be unpacked before checking signatures. | |
| Note that Cap'n Proto 0.5 introduced the rule that struct lists must always be encoded using | |
| C = 7 in the [list pointer](#lists). Prior versions of Cap'n Proto allowed struct lists to be | |
| encoded using any element size, so that small structs could be compacted to take less than a word | |
| per element, and many encoders in fact implemented this. Unfortunately, this "optimization" made | |
| canonicalization impossible without knowing the schema, which is a significant obstacle. Therefore, | |
| the rules have been changed in 0.5, but data written by previous versions may not be possible to | |
| canonicalize. | |
| ## Security Considerations | |
| A naive implementation of a Cap'n Proto reader may be vulnerable to attacks based on various kinds | |
| of malicious input. Implementations MUST guard against these. | |
| ### Pointer Validation | |
| Cap'n Proto readers must validate pointers, e.g. to check that the target object is within the | |
| bounds of its segment. To avoid an upfront scan of the message (which would defeat Cap'n Proto's | |
| O(1) parsing performance), validation should occur lazily when the getter method for a pointer is | |
| called, throwing an exception or returning a default value if the pointer is invalid. | |
| ### Amplification attack | |
| A message containing cyclic (or even just overlapping) pointers can cause the reader to go into | |
| an infinite loop while traversing the content. | |
| To defend against this, as the application traverses the message, each time a pointer is | |
| dereferenced, a counter should be incremented by the size of the data to which it points. If this | |
| counter goes over some limit, an error should be raised, and/or default values should be returned. We call this limit the "traversal limit" (or, sometimes, the "read limit"). | |
| The C++ implementation currently defaults to a limit of 64MiB, but allows the caller to set a | |
| different limit if desired. Another reasonable strategy is to set the limit to some multiple of | |
| the original message size; however, most applications should place limits on overall message sizes | |
| anyway, so it makes sense to have one check cover both. | |
| **List amplification:** A list of `Void` values or zero-size structs can have a very large element count while taking constant space on the wire. If the receiving application expects a list of structs, it will see these zero-sized elements as valid structs set to their default values. If it iterates through the list processing each element, it could spend a large amount of CPU time or other resources despite the message being small. To defend against this, the "traversal limit" should count a list of zero-sized elements as if each element were one word instead. This rule was introduced in the C++ implementation in [commit 1048706](https://github.com/capnproto/capnproto/commit/104870608fde3c698483fdef6b97f093fc15685d). | |
| ### Stack overflow DoS attack | |
| A message with deeply-nested objects can cause a stack overflow in typical code which processes | |
| messages recursively. | |
| To defend against this, as the application traverses the message, the pointer depth should be | |
| tracked. If it goes over some limit, an error should be raised. The C++ implementation currently | |
| defaults to a limit of 64 pointers, but allows the caller to set a different limit. |