Re: [dpdk-dev] How to manage new APIs added after major ABI release?

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

10/12/2019 17:32, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 04:20:41PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 15:46 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:03:51PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 14:36 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:40:53PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/10/2019 12:04 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > With new process, the major ABI releases will be compatible
> > > > > > > > until it is
> > > > > > > > deprecated (until next LTS for now),
> > > > > > > > like current ABI version is 20 in DPDK_19.11 and DPDK
> > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > until DPDK_20.11
> > > > > > > > will be ABI compatible with this version.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But if we introduce a new API after major ABI, say in 20.02
> > > > > > > > release, are we
> > > > > > > > allowed to break the ABI for that API before DPDK_20.11?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If we allow it break, following problem will be observed:
> > > > > > > > Assume an application using .so.20.1 library, and using the
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > API introduced
> > > > > > > > in 20.02, lets say foo(),
> > > > > > > > but when application switches to .so.20.2 (released via
> > > > > > > > DPDK_20.05), application
> > > > > > > > will fail because of ABI breakage in foo().
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I think it is fair that application expects forward
> > > > > > > > compatibility in minor
> > > > > > > > versions of a shared library.
> > > > > > > > Like if application linked against .so.20.2, fair to expect
> > > > > > > > .so.20.3, .so.20.4
> > > > > > > > etc will work fine. I think currently only .so.20.0 is
> > > > > > > > fully
> > > > > > > > forward compatible.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If we all agree on this, we may need to tweak the process a
> > > > > > > > little, but before
> > > > > > > > diving into implementation details, I would like to be sure
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > are in same page.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Well, any new API's generally come in as experimental, in
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > changes are allowed, and breakage can be expected. If they
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > experiemental, then the ABI policy applies to them in that
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > change since they are part of the .21 ABI, even if that ABI
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not fully
> > > > > > > complete yet. For any application only using stable, non-
> > > > > > > experimental
> > > > > > > functions, forward compatibility must be maintained IMHO.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Talking about not experimental APIs, experimental ones free
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > the process.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And when and API added in 20.02 (ABI_20.1) it is kind of still
> > > > > > ABI_20, because
> > > > > > it should be supported for following ABI_20.x, instead of
> > > > > > calling
> > > > > > it ABI_21, and
> > > > > > this minor tweak (and mind shift) in .map files can be our
> > > > > > solution.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Related at what to do with adding versions between major ABI
> > > > > versions, when
> > > > > investigating with Kevin the ABI checking we have made an
> > > > > unpleasant
> > > > > discovery:
> > > > > 
> > > > > This minor version bumping from 20.0 to 20.1 has apparently
> > > > > already
> > > > > broken
> > > > > our ABI according to libabigail.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The Gory Details [skip to the end for suggestions to fix]
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > The reason for this is that the soversion encoded in each library
> > > > > -
> > > > > whether
> > > > > built with meson or make - is the full 20.0 version, not just the
> > > > > major ABI
> > > > > .20 part. Then when apps link against DPDK, they actually encode
> > > > > the
> > > > > 20.0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So what this means is that currently - using a make build as an
> > > > > example
> > > > > here - ldd on the latest head build gives:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/x86_64-native-linux-gcc/lib ldd x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/app/testpmd | head
> > > > >         linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fff6813d000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_bond.so.20.1 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pmd_bond.so.20.1 (0x00007f36d723c000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_dpaa.so.20.1 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pmd_dpaa.so.20.1 (0x00007f36d7229000)
> > > > >         librte_mempool_dpaa.so.20.1 =>
> > > > > /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_mempool_dpaa.so.20.1
> > > > > (0x00007f36d7224000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.20.1 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.20.1
> > > > > (0x00007f36d71ba000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_i40e.so.20.1 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pmd_i40e.so.20.1 (0x00007f36d7126000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.1 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.1 (0x00007f36d70e5000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_softnic.so.20.1 =>
> > > > > /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pmd_softnic.so.20.1
> > > > > (0x00007f36d70b7000)
> > > > >         librte_flow_classify.so.0.201 =>
> > > > > /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_flow_classify.so.0.201
> > > > > (0x00007f36d70b1000)
> > > > >         librte_pipeline.so.20.1 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc/lib/librte_pipeline.so.20.1 (0x00007f36d7088000)
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Similarly ldd on a 19.11 checkout gives:
> > > > > 
> > > > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/x86_64-native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib ldd
> > > > > x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/app/testpmd | head
> > > > >         linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc2a964000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_bond.so.20.0 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pmd_bond.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc6b6000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_dpaa.so.20.0 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pmd_dpaa.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc6a3000)
> > > > >         librte_mempool_dpaa.so.20.0 =>
> > > > > /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_mempool_dpaa.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc69e000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.20.0 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc634000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_i40e.so.20.0 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pmd_i40e.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc5a0000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.0 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc55d000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_softnic.so.20.0 =>
> > > > > /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pmd_softnic.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc531000)
> > > > >         librte_flow_classify.so.0.200 =>
> > > > > /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_flow_classify.so.0.200
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc52b000)
> > > > >         librte_pipeline.so.20.0 => /home/bruce/dpdk.org/x86_64-
> > > > > native-linux-gcc_v19.11/lib/librte_pipeline.so.20.0
> > > > > (0x00007fd4dc502000)
> > > > > 
> > > > > The final check - using the 19.11 compiled testpmd with the
> > > > > library
> > > > > path
> > > > > set to 20.02 versionned libs:
> > > > > 
> > > > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/x86_64-native-linux-gcc/lib ldd x86_64-
> > > > > native-
> > > > > linux-gcc_v19.11/app/testpmd | head
> > > > >         linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc711fc000)
> > > > >         librte_pmd_bond.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_pmd_dpaa.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_mempool_dpaa.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_pmd_i40e.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_pmd_softnic.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > >         librte_flow_classify.so.0.200 => not found
> > > > >         librte_pipeline.so.20.0 => not found
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixing This
> > > > > -----------
> > > > > 
> > > > > To fix this, we need to ensure that the SONAME remains constant
> > > > > across the
> > > > > releases. Therefore, I currently see two options:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. keep 20.0 as the version and soname across all releases in
> > > > > 2020,
> > > > > i.e.
> > > > >   just revert the ABIVERSION change patch. Trouble there is how
> > > > > to
> > > > > track
> > > > >   20.02 vs 20.05 etc. etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2. remove the .0, .1 from the SONAMES stored in the libraries.
> > > > > This
> > > > > has the
> > > > >   advantage of keeping the existing planned schemes, but has the
> > > > > really big
> > > > >   downside of breaking ABI compatibility with anyone who has
> > > > > already
> > > > >   compiled with 19.11.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Personally, of the two options - unless someone can come up with
> > > > > a
> > > > > third
> > > > > option - I'd tend towards the second, fixing the builds to remove
> > > > > the
> > > > > .0 in
> > > > > the soname, and releasing that ASAP as 19.11.1 before 19.11 gets
> > > > > widespread
> > > > > adoption. Since this ABI stability is new, teething problems may
> > > > > be
> > > > > expected.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thoughts and comments?
> > > > > /Bruce
> > > > > 
> > > > > BTW: For meson, the patch for option 2 is just to remove the
> > > > > so_version
> > > > > variable and all references to it from lib/meson.build and
> > > > > drivers/meson.build. Haven't looked into a "make" fix yet.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > With libtool and its (arguably arcane) format, only the first digit
> > > > is
> > > > the ABI current version and gets encoded in the elf header. The
> > > > other
> > > > digits can be used to track compatible minor increments, and are
> > > > mostly
> > > > ignored. On the system a symlink libfoo.so.major ->
> > > > libfoo.so.major.minor is added.
> > > > 
> > > > Eg:
> > > > 
> > > > $ readelf -d /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libzmq.so.5.2.3 | grep
> > > > SONAME
> > > >  0x000000000000000e (SONAME)             Library soname:
> > > > [libzmq.so.5]
> > > > $ ls -l /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libzmq.so.5
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Dec 31  2014 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-
> > > > gnu/libzmq.so.5 -> libzmq.so.5.2.3
> > > > 
> > > > Can we do the same? Not sure what the right incantation is for
> > > > Meson,
> > > > but it should be possibly.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That's essentially option 2, and it's still an ABI break because
> > > existing
> > > builds of 19.11 have the soname will the full version number in it.
> > > The
> > > default behaviour for meson is exactly how you described it, except
> > > that
> > > previously we needed more exact control over the version info (for
> > > your
> > > dpdk-specific versions in the sonames) and so overrode the soversion
> > > explicitly. The fix for meson is to remove this overriding i.e.
> > > remove
> > > "soversion:" parameter for each shared_library() call.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > Also, we should leave the current at 20.0 - let's not break
> > > > compatibility already, please :-)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > If we do this, maybe we can use 20.0.1 and 20.0.2 version numbers?
> > 
> > Yes, that's what I meant - IMHO we should just take the hit and use the
> > slightly weird 20.0 format until next year, and add a third digit for
> > compatible updates. Then for v21 we can drop it.
> >
> My concern with that is us forgetting, because we'll put in place hacks to
> have the soversion be the first two numbers of the version. Then we need to
> remember to remove those hacks before 20.11 goes out or we'll end up with
> 21.0 being the soversion again.
> 
> For that reason, I'd rather see us fix it now before 19.11 gets widely
> adopted.

Me too I vote for fixing soname as 20 in a small 19.11.1
and release it quickly.

We are supposed to experience tooling and scheme adoption during this
first year of new ABI policy. I think we should stick to the planned
versionning, in order to avoid any surprise for the next major ABI.