DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	bluca@debian.org, ktraynor@redhat.com,
	Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>,
	dev@dpdk.org, Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
	"Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>,
	"Kusztal, ArkadiuszX" <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>,
	"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	dodji@seketeli.net, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:49:19 -0500
Message-ID: <20200204194919.GB13754@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7tftfq4dju.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 09:44:53AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> writes:
> 
> > RED FLAG
> >
> > I don't see a lot of reactions, so I summarize the issue.
> > We need action TODAY!
> >
> > API makes think that rte_cryptodev_info_get() cannot return
> > a value >= 3 (RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END in 19.11).
> > Current 20.02 returns 3 (RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305).
> > The ABI compatibility contract is broken currently.
> >
> > There are 3 possible outcomes:
> >
> > a) Change the API comments and backport to 19.11.1
> > The details are discussed between Ferruh and me.
> > Either put responsibility on API user (with explicit comment),
> > or expose ABI extension allowance with a new API max value.
> > In both cases, this is breaking the implicit contract of 19.11.0.
> > This option can be chosen only if release and ABI maintainers
> > vote for it.
> >
> > b) Revert Chacha-Poly from 20.02-rc2.
> >
> > c) Add versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get_v1911()
> > which calls rte_cryptodev_info_get() and filters out
> > RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 capability.
> > So Chacha-Poly capability would be seen and usable only
> > if compiling with DPDK 20.02.
> >
> > I hope it is clear what are the actions for everybody:
> > - ABI and release maintainers must say yes or no to the proposal (a)
> > - In the meantime, crypto team must send a patch for the proposal (c)
> > - If (a) and (c) are not possible at the end of today, I will take (b)
> >
> > Note: do not say it is too short for (c), as it was possible to work
> > on such solution since the issue was exposed on last Wednesday.
> 
> While I'm not a maintainer, if I my opinion counts for anything, I'd
> choose option c or b.  Absolutely NACK to a.
> 
Agreed, options c and b are reasonable, a isn't.  ABI commitments are ours, not
users.

Neil

> >
> > 03/02/2020 22:07, Thomas Monjalon:
> >> 03/02/2020 19:55, Ray Kinsella:
> >> > On 03/02/2020 17:34, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> > > 03/02/2020 18:09, Thomas Monjalon:
> >> > >> 03/02/2020 10:30, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> > >>> On 2/2/2020 2:41 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> > >>>> 02/02/2020 14:05, Thomas Monjalon:
> >> > >>>>> 31/01/2020 15:16, Trahe, Fiona:
> >> > >>>>>> On 1/30/2020 8:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> If library give higher value than expected by the application,
> >> > >>>>>>> if the application uses this value as array index,
> >> > >>>>>>> there can be an access out of bounds.
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> [Fiona] All asymmetric APIs are experimental so above shouldn't be a problem.
> >> > >>>>>> But for the same issue with sym crypto below, I believe Ferruh's explanation makes
> >> > >>>>>> sense and I don't see how there can be an API breakage.
> >> > >>>>>> So if an application hasn't compiled against the new lib it
> >> > >>>>>> will be still using the old value
> >> > >>>>>> which will be within bounds. If it's picking up the higher
> >> > >>>>>> new value from the lib it must
> >> > >>>>>> have been compiled against the lib so shouldn't have problems.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> You say there is no ABI issue because the application will be re-compiled
> >> > >>>>> for the updated library. Indeed, compilation fixes compatibility issues.
> >> > >>>>> But this is not relevant for ABI compatibility.
> >> > >>>>> ABI compatibility means we can upgrade the library without recompiling
> >> > >>>>> the application and it must work.
> >> > >>>>> You think it is a false positive because you assume the application
> >> > >>>>> "picks" the new value. I think you miss the case where the new value
> >> > >>>>> is returned by a function in the upgraded library.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> There are also no structs on the API which contain arrays using this
> >> > >>>>>> for sizing, so I don't see an opportunity for an appl to have a
> >> > >>>>>> mismatch in memory addresses.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Let me demonstrate where the API may "use" the new value
> >> > >>>>> RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 and how it impacts the application.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Once upon a time a DPDK application counting the number of devices
> >> > >>>>> supporting each AEAD algo (in order to find the best supported algo).
> >> > >>>>> It is done in an array indexed by algo id:
> >> > >>>>> int aead_dev_count[RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END];
> >> > >>>>> The application is compiled with DPDK 19.11,
> >> > >>>>> where RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END = 3.
> >> > >>>>> So the size of the application array aead_dev_count is 3.
> >> > >>>>> This binary is run with DPDK 20.02,
> >> > >>>>> where RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 = 3.
> >> > >>>>> When calling rte_cryptodev_info_get() on a device QAT_GEN3,
> >> > >>>>> rte_cryptodev_info.capabilities.sym.aead.algo is set to
> >> > >>>>> RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 (= 3).
> >> > >>>>> The application uses this value:
> >> > >>>>> ++ aead_dev_count[info.capabilities.sym.aead.algo];
> >> > >>>>> The application is crashing because of out of bound access.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> I'd say this is an example of bad written app.
> >> > >>>> It probably should check that returned by library value doesn't
> >> > >>>> exceed its internal array size.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> +1
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Application should ignore values >= MAX.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Of course, blaming the API user is a lot easier than looking at the API.
> >> > >> Here the API has RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END which can be understood
> >> > >> as the max value for the application.
> >> > >> Value ranges are part of the ABI compatibility contract.
> >> > >> It seems you expect the application developer to be aware that
> >> > >> DPDK could return a higher value, so the application should
> >> > >> check every enum values after calling an API. CRAZY.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> When we decide to announce an ABI compatibility and do some marketing,
> >> > >> everyone is OK. But when we need to really make our ABI compatible,
> >> > >> I see little or no effort. DISAPPOINTING.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Do you suggest we don't extend any enum or define between ABI breakage releases
> >> > >>> to be sure bad written applications not affected?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I suggest we must consider not breaking any assumption made on the API.
> >> > >> Here we are breaking the enum range because nothing mentions _LIST_END
> >> > >> is not really the absolute end of the enum.
> >> > >> The solution is to make the change below in 20.02 + backport in 19.11.1:
> >> > > 
> >> > > Thinking twice, merging such change before 20.11 is breaking the
> >> > > ABI assumption based on the API 19.11.0.
> >> > > I ask the release maintainers (Luca, Kevin, David and me) and
> >> > > the ABI maintainers (Neil and Ray) to vote for a or b solution:
> >> > > 	a) add comment and LIST_MAX as below in 20.02 + 19.11.1
> >> > 
> >> > That would still be an ABI breakage though right.
> >> > 
> >> > > 	b) wait 20.11 and revert Chacha-Poly from 20.02
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks for analysis above Fiona, Ferruh and all. 
> >> > 
> >> > That is a nasty one alright - there is no "good" answer here.
> >> > I agree with Ferruh's sentiments overall, we should rethink this API for 20.11. 
> >> > Could do without an enumeration?
> >> > 
> >> > There a c) though right.
> >> > We could work around the issue by api versioning rte_cryptodev_info_get() and friends.
> >> > So they only support/acknowledge the existence of Chacha-Poly for
> >> > applications build against > 20.02.
> >> 
> >> I agree there is a c) as I proposed in another email:
> >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-February/156919.html
> >> "
> >> In this case, the proper solution is to implement
> >> rte_cryptodev_info_get_v1911() so it filters out
> >> RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 capability.
> >> With this solution, an application compiled with DPDK 19.11 will keep
> >> seeing the same range as before, while a 20.02 application could
> >> see and use ChachaPoly.
> >> "
> >> 
> >> > It would be painful I know.
> >> 
> >> Not so painful in my opinion.
> >> Just need to call rte_cryptodev_info_get() from
> >> rte_cryptodev_info_get_v1911() and filter the value
> >> in the 19.11 range: [0..AES_GCM].
> >> 
> >> > It would also mean that Chacha-Poly would only be available to
> >> > those building against >= 20.02.
> >> 
> >> Yes exactly.
> >> 
> >> The addition of comments and LIST_MAX like below are still valid
> >> to avoid versioning after 20.11.
> >> 
> >> > >> - _LIST_END
> >> > >> + _LIST_END, /* an ABI-compatible version may increase this value */
> >> > >> + _LIST_MAX = _LIST_END + 42 /* room for ABI-compatible additions */
> >> > >> };
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Then *_LIST_END values could be ignored by libabigail with such a change.
> >> 
> >> In order to avoid ABI check complaining, the best is to completely
> >> remove LIST_END in DPDK 20.11.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > >> If such a patch is not done by tomorrow, I will have to revert
> >> > >> Chacha-Poly commits before 20.02-rc2, because
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1/ LIST_END, without any comment, means "size of range"
> >> > >> 2/ we do not blame users for undocumented ABI changes
> >> > >> 3/ we respect the ABI compatibility contract
> 
> 

  reply index

Thread overview: 104+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-20 15:20 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " David Marchand
2019-12-20 15:32 ` Richardson, Bruce
2019-12-20 16:20   ` Kinsella, Ray
2019-12-20 21:00     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-06 13:17       ` Aaron Conole
2020-01-15 13:07         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-01-14 23:19     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-15 11:33       ` Neil Horman
2020-01-15 12:38         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-16 11:52           ` Neil Horman
2020-01-16 14:20             ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-16 18:49               ` Neil Horman
2020-01-16 20:01                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-17 19:01                   ` Neil Horman
2020-01-17 21:26                     ` David Marchand
2019-12-20 20:25 ` Neil Horman
2020-01-29 17:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] " David Marchand
2020-01-29 17:26   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] hash: fix meson headers packaging David Marchand
2020-01-30 10:12     ` Luca Boccassi
2020-01-30 10:54       ` David Marchand
2020-01-30 10:56         ` Luca Boccassi
2020-01-29 17:26   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] build: split build helper David Marchand
2020-01-29 17:26   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] build: test meson installation David Marchand
2020-01-29 17:26   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks David Marchand
2020-01-29 17:42     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-29 18:10       ` Anoob Joseph
2020-01-29 20:03         ` David Marchand
2020-01-29 20:13           ` Akhil Goyal
2020-01-30 16:09             ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-30 20:18               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-31  9:03                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-31 10:26                   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-01-31 14:16                 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-02 13:05                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-02 14:41                     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-02-03  9:30                       ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-03 11:50                         ` Neil Horman
2020-02-03 13:09                           ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-03 14:00                             ` Dodji Seketeli
2020-02-03 14:46                               ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-03 15:08                             ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-03 17:09                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-03 17:34                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-03 18:55                             ` Ray Kinsella
2020-02-03 21:07                               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-04  9:46                                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-04 10:24                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-04 12:44                                   ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-04 15:52                                     ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-04 15:59                                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-04 17:46                                         ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-13 14:51                                           ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2020-03-16 12:57                                             ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-03-16 13:09                                               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-03-17 13:27                                                 ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2020-03-17 15:10                                                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-03-17 19:10                                                     ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2020-02-04 12:57                                   ` Kevin Traynor
2020-02-04 14:44                                   ` Aaron Conole
2020-02-04 19:49                                     ` Neil Horman [this message]
2020-02-04  9:51                               ` David Marchand
2020-02-04 10:10                                 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-04 10:38                                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-05 11:10                                 ` Ray Kinsella
2020-02-03 17:40                           ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-03 18:40                             ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-04  9:19                               ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-04  9:45                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-04  9:56                                   ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-02-04 10:08                                     ` Bruce Richardson
2020-02-04 10:17                                     ` Kevin Traynor
2020-02-04 10:16                             ` Akhil Goyal
2020-02-04 10:28                               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-04 10:32                                 ` Akhil Goyal
2020-02-04 11:35                                   ` Bruce Richardson
2020-02-04 22:10                                   ` Neil Horman
2020-02-05  6:16                                     ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Anoob Joseph
2020-02-05 14:33                                       ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-02-04 21:59                               ` [dpdk-dev] " Neil Horman
2020-01-30 13:06         ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-01-30 15:59           ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-30 16:42             ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-30 23:49             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-01-31  9:07               ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-31  9:37                 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-01-30 10:57   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] " Luca Boccassi
2020-01-30 16:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " David Marchand
2020-01-30 16:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] hash: fix meson headers packaging David Marchand
2020-01-30 18:01     ` Wang, Yipeng1
2020-01-30 18:40       ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-02-05 19:51         ` Wang, Yipeng1
2020-01-30 16:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] build: split build helper David Marchand
2020-01-30 16:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] build: test meson installation David Marchand
2020-01-30 22:17     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-30 16:00   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] add ABI checks David Marchand
2020-01-30 22:32     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-01 15:29       ` David Marchand
2020-01-30 22:44     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-02 21:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] " David Marchand
2020-02-02 21:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] hash: fix meson headers packaging David Marchand
2020-02-05 19:53     ` Wang, Yipeng1
2020-02-02 21:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] build: split build helper David Marchand
2020-02-02 21:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] add ABI checks David Marchand
2020-02-05 14:13   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] " Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200204194919.GB13754@hmswarspite.think-freely.org \
    --to=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=aconole@redhat.com \
    --cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
    --cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
    --cc=arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dodji@seketeli.net \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=fiona.trahe@intel.com \
    --cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox