• WPE graphics overview, by Miguel.
• QA and tooling by Lauro.
• WPE networking overview, by Patrick.

These articles are an interesting read not only if you're working on WebKit, but also if you are curious on how a modern browser engine works and some of the moving parts beneath the surface. So go check them out!

On a related note, the WebKit team is always on the lookout for talent to join us. Experience with WebKit or browsers is not necessarily a must, as we know from experience that anyone with a strong C/C++ background and enough curiosity will be able to ramp up and start contributing soon enough. If these articles spark your curiosity, feel free to reach out to me to find out more or to apply directly!

This article begins a series of technical writeups on the architecture of WPE, and we hope to publish during the rest of the year further articles breaking down different components of WebKit, including graphics and other subsystems, that will surely be of great help for those interested in getting more familiar with WebKit and its internals.

The problem

It all started with one of Igalia's customers deploying a WPE WebKit-based browser in their embedded devices. Their CI infrastructure had detected a problem caused when the browser was tasked with creating a new webview (in layman terms, you can imagine that to be the same as opening a new tab in your browser). Occasionally, this view would never load, causing ongoing tests to fail. For some reason, the test failure had a reproducibility of ~75% in the CI environment, but during manual testing it would occur with less than a 1% of probability. For reasons that are beyond the scope of this post, the CI infrastructure was not reachable in a way that would allow to have access to running processes in order to diagnose the problem more easily. So with only logs at hand and less than a 1/100 chances of reproducing the bug myself, I set to debug this problem locally.

Diagnosis

The first that became evident was that, whenever this bug would occur, the WebKit feature known as web extension (an application-specific loadable module that is used to allow the program to have access to the internals of a web page, as well to enable customizable communication with the process where the page contents are loaded – the web process) wouldn't work. The browser would be forever waiting that the web extension loads, and since that wouldn't happen, the expected page wouldn't load. The first place to look into then is the web process and to try to understand what is preventing the web extension from loading. Enter here, our good friend GDB, with less than spectacular results thanks to stripped libraries.

#0  0x7500ab9c in poll () from target:/lib/libc.so.6
#1  0x73c08c0c in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libEGL.so.1
#2  0x73c08d2c in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libEGL.so.1
#3  0x73c08e0c in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libEGL.so.1
#4  0x73bold6a8 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libEGL.so.1
#5  0x75f84208 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#6  0x75fa0b7e in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#7  0x7561eda2 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#8  0x755a176a in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#9  0x753cd842 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#10 0x75451660 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#11 0x75452882 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#12 0x75452fa8 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#13 0x76b1de62 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#14 0x76b5a970 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#15 0x74bee44c in g_main_context_dispatch () from target:/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#16 0x74bee808 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#17 0x74beeba8 in g_main_loop_run () from target:/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#18 0x76b5b11c in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#19 0x75622338 in ?? () from target:/usr/lib/libWPEWebKit-1.0.so.2
#20 0x74f59b58 in __libc_start_main () from target:/lib/libc.so.6
#21 0x0045d8d0 in _start ()

From all threads in the web process, after much tinkering around it slowly became clear that one of the places to look into is that poll() call. I will spare you the details related to what other threads were doing, suffice to say that whenever the browser would hit the bug, there was a similar stacktrace in one thread, going through libEGL to a call to poll() on top of the stack, that would never return. Unfortunately, a stripped EGL driver coming from a proprietary graphics vendor was a bit of a showstopper, as it was the inability to have proper debugging symbols running inside the device (did you know that a non-stripped WebKit library binary with debugging symbols can easily get GDB and your device out of memory?). The best one could do to improve that was to use the gcore feature in GDB, and extract a core from the device for post-mortem analysis. But for some reason, such a stacktrace wouldn't give anything interesting below the poll() call to understand what's being polled here. Did I say this was tricky?

What polls?

Because WebKit is a multiprocess web engine, having system calls that signal, read, and write in sockets communicating with other processes is an everyday thing. Not knowing what a poll() call is doing and who is it that it's trying to listen to, not very good. Because the call is happening under the EGL library, one can presume that it's graphics related, but there are still different possibilities, so trying to find out what is this polling is a good idea.

A trick I learned while debugging this is that, in absence of debugging symbols that would give a straightforward look into variables and parameters, one can examine the CPU registers and try to figure out from them what the parameters to function calls are. Let's do that with poll(). First, its signature.

int poll(struct pollfd *fds, nfds_t nfds, int timeout);

Now, let's examine the registers.

(gdb) f 0
#0  0x7500ab9c in poll () from target:/lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) info registers
r0             0x7ea55e58	2124766808
r1             0x1	1
r2             0x64	100
r3             0x0	0
r4             0x0	0

Registers r0, r1, and r2 contain poll()'s three parameters. Because r1 is 1, we know that there is only one file descriptor being polled. fds is a pointer to an array with one element then. Where is that first element? Well, right there, in the memory pointed to directly by r0. What does struct pollfd look like?

struct pollfd {
  int   fd;         /* file descriptor */
  short events;     /* requested events */
  short revents;    /* returned events */
};

What we are interested in here is the contents of fd, the file descriptor that is being polled. Memory alignment is again in our side, we don't need any pointer arithmetic here. We can inspect directly the register r0 and find out what the value of fd is.

(gdb) print *0x7ea55e58
$3 = 8

So we now know that the EGL library is polling the file descriptor with an identifier of 8. But where is this file descriptor coming from? What is on the other end? The /proc file system can be helpful here.

# pidof WPEWebProcess
1944 1196
# ls -lh /proc/1944/fd/8
lrwx------    1 x x      64 Oct 22 13:59 /proc/1944/fd/8 -> socket:[32166]

So we have a socket. What else can we find out about it? Turns out, not much without the unix_diag kernel module, which was not available in our device. But we are slowly getting closer. Time to call another good friend.

Where GDB fails, printf() triumphs

Something I have learned from many years working with a project as large as WebKit, is that debugging symbols can be very difficult to work with. To begin with, it takes ages to build WebKit with them. When cross-compiling, it's even worse. And then, very often the target device doesn't even have enough memory to load the symbols when debugging. So they can be pretty useless. It's then when just using fprintf() and logging useful information can simplify things. Since we know that it's at some point during initialization of the web process that we end up stuck, and we also know that we're polling a file descriptor, let's find some early calls in the code of the web process and add some fprintf() calls with a bit of information, specially in those that might have something to do with EGL. What can we find out now?

Oct 19 10:13:27.700335 WPEWebProcess[92]: Starting
Oct 19 10:13:27.720575 WPEWebProcess[92]: Initializing WebProcess platform.
Oct 19 10:13:27.727850 WPEWebProcess[92]: wpe_loader_init() done.
Oct 19 10:13:27.729054 WPEWebProcess[92]: Initializing PlatformDisplayLibWPE (hostFD: 8).
Oct 19 10:13:27.730166 WPEWebProcess[92]: egl backend created.
Oct 19 10:13:27.741556 WPEWebProcess[92]: got native display.
Oct 19 10:13:27.742565 WPEWebProcess[92]: initializeEGLDisplay() starting.

Two interesting findings from the fprintf()-powered logging here: first, it seems that file descriptor 8 is one known to libwpe (the general-purpose library that powers the WPE WebKit port). Second, that the last EGL API call right before the web process hangs on poll() is a call to eglInitialize(). fprintf(), thanks for your service.

Number 8

We now know that the file descriptor 8 is coming from WPE and is not internal to the EGL library. libwpe gets this file descriptor from the UI process, as one of the many creation parameters that are passed via IPC to the nascent process in order to initialize it. Turns out that this file descriptor in particular, the so-called host client file descriptor, is the one that the freedesktop backend of libWPE, from here onwards WPEBackend-fdo, creates when a new client is set to connect to its Wayland display. In a nutshell, in presence of a new client, a Wayland display is supposed to create a pair of connected sockets, create a new client on the Display-side, give it one of the file descriptors, and pass the other one to the client process. Because this will be useful later on, let's see how is that currently implemented in WPEBackend-fdo.

    int pair[2];
    if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0, pair) < 0)
        return -1;

    int clientFd = dup(pair[1]);
    close(pair[1]);

    wl_client_create(m_display, pair[0]);

The file descriptor we are tracking down is the client file descriptor, clientFd. So we now know what's going on in this socket: Wayland-specific communication. Let's enable Wayland debugging next, by running all relevant process with WAYLAND_DEBUG=1. We'll get back to that code fragment later on.

A Heisenbug is a Heisenbug is a Heisenbug

Turns out that enabling Wayland debugging output for a few processes is enough to alter the state of the system in such a way that the bug does not happen at all when doing manual testing. Thankfully the CI's reproducibility is much higher, so after waiting overnight for the CI to continuously run until it hit the bug, we have logs. What do the logs say?

WPEWebProcess[41]: initializeEGLDisplay() starting.
  -> wl_display@1.get_registry(new id wl_registry@2)
  -> wl_display@1.sync(new id wl_callback@3)

So the EGL library is trying to fetch the Wayland registry and it's doing a wl_display_sync() call afterwards, which will block until the server responds. That's where the blocking poll() call comes from. So, it turns out, the problem is not necessarily on this end of the Wayland socket, but perhaps on the other side, that is, in the so-called UI process (the main browser process). Why is the Wayland display not replying?

The loop

Something that is worth mentioning before we move on is how the WPEBackend-fdo Wayland display integrates with the system. This display is a nested display, with each web view a client, while it is itself a client of the system's Wayland display. This can be a bit confusing if you're not very familiar with how Wayland works, but fortunately there is good documentation about Wayland elsewhere.

The way that the Wayland display in the UI process of a WPEWebKit browser is integrated with the rest of the program, when it uses WPEBackend-fdo, is through the GLib main event loop. Wayland itself has an event loop implementation for servers, but for a GLib-powered application it can be useful to use GLib's and integrate Wayland's event processing with the different stages of the GLib main loop. That is precisely how WPEBackend-fdo is handling its clients' events. As discussed earlier, when a new client is created a pair of connected sockets are created and one end is given to Wayland to control communication with the client. GSourceFunc functions are used to integrate Wayland with the application main loop. In these functions, we make sure that whenever there are pending messages to be sent to clients, those are sent, and whenever any of the client sockets has pending data to be read, Wayland reads from them, and to dispatch the events that might be necessary in response to the incoming data. And here is where things start getting really strange, because after doing a bit of fprintf()-powered debugging inside the Wayland-GSourceFuncs functions, it became clear that the Wayland events from the clients were never dispatched, because the dispatch() GSourceFunc was not being called, as if there was nothing coming from any Wayland client. But how is that possible, if we already know that the web process client is actually trying to get the Wayland registry?

To move forward, one needs to understand how the GLib main loop works, in particular, with Unix file descriptor sources. A very brief summary of this is that, during an iteration of the main loop, GLib will poll file descriptors to see if there are any interesting events to be reported back to their respective sources, in which case the sources will decide whether to trigger the dispatch() phase. A simple source might decide in its dispatch() method to directly read or write from/to the file descriptor; a Wayland display source (as in our case), will call wl_event_loop_dispatch() to do this for us. However, if the source doesn't find any interesting events, or if the source decides that it doesn't want to handle them, the dispatch() invocation will not happen. More on the GLib main event loop in its API documentation.

So it seems that for some reason the dispatch() method is not being called. Does that mean that there are no interesting events to read from? Let's find out.

System call tracing

Here we resort to another helpful tool, strace. With strace we can try to figure out what is happening when the main loop polls file descriptors. The strace output is huge (because it takes easily over a hundred attempts to reproduce this), but we know already some of the calls that involve file descriptors from the code we looked at above, when the client is created. So we can use those calls as a starting point in when searching through the several MBs of logs. Fast-forward to the relevant logs.

socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0, [128, 130]) = 0
dup(130)               = 131
close(130)             = 0
fcntl64(128, F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC, 0) = 130
epoll_ctl(34, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, 130, {EPOLLIN, {u32=1639599928, u64=1639599928}}) = 0

What we see there is, first, WPEBackend-fdo creating a new socket pair (128, 130) and then, when file descriptor 130 is passed to wl_client_create() to create a new client, Wayland adds that file descriptor to its epoll() instance for monitoring clients, which is referred to by file descriptor 34. This way, whenever there are events in file descriptor 130, we will hear about them in file descriptor 34.

So what we would expect to see next is that, after the web process is spawned, when a Wayland client is created using the passed file descriptor and the EGL driver requests the Wayland registry from the display, there should be a POLLIN event coming in file descriptor 34 and, if the dispatch() call for the source was called, a epoll_wait() call on it, as that is what wl_event_loop_dispatch() would do when called from the source's dispatch() method. But what do we have instead?

poll([{fd=30, events=POLLIN}, {fd=34, events=POLLIN}, {fd=59, events=POLLIN}, {fd=110, events=POLLIN}, {fd=114, events=POLLIN}, {fd=132, events=POLLIN}], 6, 0) = 1 ([{fd=34, revents=POLLIN}])
recvmsg(30, {msg_namelen=0}, MSG_DONTWAIT|MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)

strace can be a bit cryptic, so let's explain those two function calls. The first one is a poll in a series of file descriptors (including 30 and 34) for POLLIN events. The return value of that call tells us that there is a POLLIN event in file descriptor 34 (the Wayland display epoll() instance for clients). But unintuitively, the call right after is trying to read a message from socket 30 instead, which we know doesn't have any pending data at the moment, and consequently returns an error value with an errno of EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable).

Why is the GLib main loop triggering a read from 30 instead of 34? And who is 30?

We can answer the latter question first. Breaking on a running UI process instance at the right time shows who is reading from the file descriptor 30:

#1  0x70ae1394 in wl_os_recvmsg_cloexec (sockfd=30, msg=msg@entry=0x700fea54, flags=flags@entry=64)
#2  0x70adf644 in wl_connection_read (connection=0x6f70b7e8)
#3  0x70ade70c in read_events (display=0x6f709c90)
#4  wl_display_read_events (display=0x6f709c90)
#5  0x70277d98 in pwl_source_check (source=0x6f71cb80)
#6  0x743f2140 in g_main_context_check (context=context@entry=0x2111978, max_priority=, fds=fds@entry=0x6165f718, n_fds=n_fds@entry=4)
#7  0x743f277c in g_main_context_iterate (context=0x2111978, block=block@entry=1, dispatch=dispatch@entry=1, self=)
#8  0x743f2ba8 in g_main_loop_run (loop=0x20ece40)
#9  0x00537b38 in ?? ()

So it's also Wayland, but on a different level. This is the Wayland client source (remember that the browser is also a Wayland client?), which is installed by cog (a thin browser layer on top of WPE WebKit that makes writing browsers easier to do) to process, among others, input events coming from the parent Wayland display. Looking at the cog code, we can see that the wl_display_read_events() call happens only if GLib reports that there is a G_IO_IN (POLLIN) event in its file descriptor, but we already know that this is not the case, as per the strace output. So at this point we know that there are two things here that are not right:

1. A FD source with a G_IO_IN condition is not being dispatched.
2. A FD source without a G_IO_IN condition is being dispatched.

Someone here is not telling the truth, and as a result the main loop is dispatching the wrong sources.

The loop (part II)

It is at this point that it would be a good idea to look at what exactly the GLib main loop is doing internally in each of its stages and how it tracks the sources and file descriptors that are polled and that need to be processed. Fortunately, debugging symbols for GLib are very small, so debugging this step by step inside the device is rather easy.

Let's look at how the main loop decides which sources to dispatch, since for some reason it's dispatching the wrong ones. Dispatching happens in the g_main_dispatch() method. This method goes over a list of pending source dispatches and after a few checks and setting the stage, the dispatch method for the source gets called. How is a source set as having a pending dispatch? This happens in g_main_context_check(), where the main loop checks the results of the polling done in this iteration and runs the check() method for sources that are not ready yet so that they can decide whether they are ready to be dispatched or not. Breaking into the Wayland display source, I know that the check() method is called. How does this method decide to be dispatched or not?

    [](GSource* base) -> gboolean
    {
        auto& source = *reinterpret_cast(base);
        return !!source.pfd.revents;
    },

In this lambda function we're returning TRUE or FALSE, depending on whether the revents field in the GPollFD structure have been filled during the polling stage of this iteration of the loop. A return value of TRUE indicates the main loop that we want our source to be dispatched. From the strace output, we know that there is a POLLIN (or G_IO_IN) condition, but we also know that the main loop is not dispatching it. So let's look at what's in this GPollFD structure.

For this, let's go back to g_main_context_check() and inspect the array of GPollFD structures that it received when called. What do we find?

(gdb) print *fds
$35 = {fd = 30, events = 1, revents = 0}
(gdb) print *(fds+1)
$36 = {fd = 34, events = 1, revents = 1}

That's the result of the poll() call! So far so good. Now the method is supposed to update the polling records it keeps and it uses when calling each of the sources check() functions. What do these records hold?

(gdb) print *pollrec->fd
$45 = {fd = 19, events = 1, revents = 0}
(gdb) print *(pollrec->next->fd)
$47 = {fd = 30, events = 25, revents = 1}
(gdb) print *(pollrec->next->next->fd)
$49 = {fd = 34, events = 25, revents = 0}

We're not interested in the first record quite yet, but clearly there's something odd here. The polling records are showing a different value in the revent fields for both 30 and 34. Are these records updated correctly? Let's look at the algorithm that is doing this update, because it will be relevant later on.

  pollrec = context->poll_records;
  i = 0;
  while (pollrec && i < n_fds)
    {
      while (pollrec && pollrec->fd->fd == fds[i].fd)
        {
          if (pollrec->priority <= max_priority)
            {
              pollrec->fd->revents =
                fds[i].revents & (pollrec->fd->events | G_IO_ERR | G_IO_HUP | G_IO_NVAL);
            }
          pollrec = pollrec->next;
        }

      i++;
    }

In simple words, what this algorithm is doing is to traverse simultaneously the polling records and the GPollFD array, updating the polling records revents with the results of polling. From reading how the pollrec linked list is built internally, it's possible to see that it's purposely sorted by increasing file descriptor identifier value. So the first item in the list will have the record for the lowest file descriptor identifier, and so on. The GPollFD array is also built in this way, allowing for a nice optimization: if more than one polling record – that is, more than one polling source – needs to poll the same file descriptor, this can be done at once. This is why this otherwise O(n^2) nested loop can actually be reduced to linear time.

One thing stands out here though: the linked list is only advanced when we find a match. Does this mean that we always have a match between polling records and the file descriptors that have just been polled? To answer that question we need to check how is the array of GPollFD structures filled. This is done in g_main_context_query(), as we hinted before. I'll spare you the details, and just focus on what seems relevant here: when is a poll record not used to fill a GPollFD?

  n_poll = 0;
  lastpollrec = NULL;
  for (pollrec = context->poll_records; pollrec; pollrec = pollrec->next)
    {
      if (pollrec->priority > max_priority)
        continue;
  ...

Interesting! If a polling record belongs to a source whose priority is lower than the maximum priority that the current iteration is going to process, the polling record is skipped. Why is this?

In simple terms, this happens because each iteration of the main loop finds out the highest priority between the sources that are ready in the prepare() stage, before polling, and then only those file descriptor sources with at least such a a priority are polled. The idea behind this is to make sure that high-priority sources are processed first, and that no file descriptor sources with lower priority are polled in vain, as they shouldn't be dispatched in the current iteration.

GDB tells me that the maximum priority in this iteration is -60. From an earlier GDB output, we also know that there's a source for a file descriptor 19 with a priority 0.

(gdb) print *pollrec
$44 = {fd = 0x7369c8, prev = 0x0, next = 0x6f701560, priority = 0}
(gdb) print *pollrec->fd
$45 = {fd = 19, events = 1, revents = 0}

Since 19 is lower than 30 and 34, we know that this record is before theirs in the linked list (and so it happens, it's the first one in the list too). But we know that, because its priority is 0, it is too low to be added to the file descriptor array to be polled. Let's look at the loop again.

  pollrec = context->poll_records;
  i = 0;
  while (pollrec && i < n_fds)
    {
      while (pollrec && pollrec->fd->fd == fds[i].fd)
        {
          if (pollrec->priority <= max_priority)
            {
              pollrec->fd->revents =
                fds[i].revents & (pollrec->fd->events | G_IO_ERR | G_IO_HUP | G_IO_NVAL);
            }
          pollrec = pollrec->next;
        }

      i++;
    }

The first polling record was skipped during the update of the GPollFD array, so the condition pollrec && pollrec->fd->fd == fds[i].fd is never going to be satisfied, because 19 is not in the array. The innermost while() is not entered, and as such the pollrec list pointer never moves forward to the next record. So no polling record is updated here, even if we have updated revent information from the polling results.

What happens next should be easy to see. The check() method for all polled sources are called with outdated revents. In the case of the source for file descriptor 30, we wrongly tell it there's a G_IO_IN condition, so it asks the main loop to call dispatch it triggering a a wl_connection_read() call in a socket with no incoming data. For the source with file descriptor 34, we tell it that there's no incoming data and its dispatch() method is not invoked, even when on the other side of the socket we have a client waiting for data to come and blocking in the meantime. This explains what we see in the strace output above. If the source with file descriptor 19 continues to be ready and with its priority unchanged, then this situation repeats in every further iteration of the main loop, leading to a hang in the web process that is forever waiting that the UI process reads its socket pipe.

The bug – explained

I have been using GLib for a very long time, and I have only fixed a couple of minor bugs in it over the years. Very few actually, which is why it was very difficult for me to come to accept that I had found a bug in one of the most reliable and complex parts of the library. Impostor syndrome is a thing and it really gets in the way.

But in a nutshell, the bug in the GLib main loop is that the very clever linear update of registers is missing something very important: it should skip to the first polling record matching before attempting to update its revents. Without this, in the presence of a file descriptor source with the lowest file descriptor identifier and also a lower priority than the cutting priority in the current main loop iteration, revents in the polling registers are not updated and therefore the wrong sources can be dispatched. The simplest patch to avoid this, would look as follows.

   i = 0;
   while (pollrec && i < n_fds)
     {
+      while (pollrec && pollrec->fd->fd != fds[i].fd)
+        pollrec = pollrec->next;
+
       while (pollrec && pollrec->fd->fd == fds[i].fd)
         {
           if (pollrec->priority <= max_priority)

Once we find the first matching record, let's update all consecutive records that also match and need an update, then let's skip to the next record, rinse and repeat. With this two-line patch, the web process was finally unlocked, the EGL display initialized properly, the web extension and the web page were loaded, CI tests starting passing again, and this exhausted developer could finally put his mind to rest.

A complete patch, including improvements to the code comments around this fascinating part of GLib and also a minimal test case reproducing the bug have already been reviewed by the GLib maintainers and merged to both stable and development branches. I expect that at least some GLib sources will start being called in a different (but correct) order from now on, so keep an eye on your GLib sources. :-)

Standing on the shoulders of giants

At this point I should acknowledge that without the support from my colleagues in the WebKit team in Igalia, getting to the bottom of this problem would have probably been much harder and perhaps my sanity would have been at stake. I want to thank Adrián and Žan for their input on Wayland, debugging techniques, and for allowing me to bounce back and forth ideas and findings as I went deeper into this rabbit hole, helping me to step out of dead-ends, reminding me to use tools out of my everyday box, and ultimately, to be brave enough to doubt GLib's correctness, something that much more often than not I take for granted.

Thanks also to Philip and Sebastian for their feedback and prompt code review!

That's how Alex, Martin, and me spent a few months exploring the Chromium project and its printing architecture. Soon enough we found out that the Chromium developers had been working already on a feature that would allow pages to be removed from cruft and presented in a sort of reader mode, at least in mobile versions of the browser. This is achieved through a module called dom distiller, which basically has the ability to traverse the DOM tree of a web page and return a clean DOM tree with only the important contents of the page. This module is based on the algorithms and heuristics in a project called boilerpipe with some of it also coming from the now popular Readability. Our goal, then, was to integrate the DOM distiller with the modules in Chromium that take care of generating the document that is then sent to both the print preview and the printing service, as well as making this feature available in the printing UI.

After a couple of months of work and thanks to the kind code reviews of the folks at Google, we got the feature landed in Chromium's repository. For a while, though, it remained hidden behind a runtime flag, as the Chromium team needed to make sure that things would work well enough in all fronts before making it available to all users. Fast-forward to last week, when I found out by chance that the runtime flag has been flipped and the Simplify page printing option has been available in Chromium and Chrome for a while now, and it has even reached the stable releases. The reader mode feature in Chromium seems to remain hidden behind a runtime flag, I think, which is interesting considering that this was the original motivation behind the dom distiller.

As a side note, it is worth mentioning that the collaboration with HP was pretty neat and it's a good example of the ways in which Igalia can help organizations to improve the web experience of users. From the standards that define the web to the browsers that people use in their everyday life, there are plenty of areas in which work needs to be done to make the web a more pleasant place, for web developers and users alike. If your organization relies on the web to reach its users, or to enable them to make use of your technologies, chances are that there are areas in which their experience can be improved and that's one of the things we love doing.

• Multimedia developer.
• Networking developer.
• Senior networking developer.
• Compilers & programming languages developer.

Have a look at the announcement in our web page for more details, and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any doubt about the internships!