From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A298142BE1; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:24:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E01D40A82; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:24:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f51.google.com (mail-vs1-f51.google.com [209.85.217.51]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A461E406BC; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:24:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f51.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-437e8282c1fso954762137.2; Tue, 30 May 2023 02:24:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685438642; x=1688030642; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tmuBxDsIGdJ8kE8GtnaYKiWdpqnygzt3nQbo0JQouYA=; b=Ro1a0iVLl9EkiYaPbx82XRUGOKqoD/QxiQyOouc6sI8b9j1T84B3bIjbn8lja1Akzw nz9OCxrDQNHTfjiMNMP+oUbwwK5B192wNO3IdvDlRb5/nNGEjLFS1YW7iI1AjYL+HlPe yMzIwyCTc12iVPN6vFwcSKBLmKTJmKFgwdxu0SakydMLfLEOMY1kl8sCTXmHTxLKNf+l IDqC+RNhe5BSLo4u3xES8dnXhep/nlPN5ChX1g93fQFP1XCb4uJ1OlEdVwMwftgE/k/x bNZFt2ziWNPVy8w9JyVawvJSJc7rwpf5//wSvhDvY/xdLJfgMKJQcaUEmOGWDEI0t41h f4+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685438642; x=1688030642; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tmuBxDsIGdJ8kE8GtnaYKiWdpqnygzt3nQbo0JQouYA=; b=jiWf67pmIpxtB9sr1iDFzshEHYbh/TuO1OP11CQ15yzPVYx6c+s0XlMx0+yOXFiXga lLVHHgViPP/m9tGwLF/eZOyaLL5yCcqXjpbJFATR8awlGuBb+q5vansDfBbRyS214B0K ENs8XuPVv3OpRxO03v5Z9erFabVHyVibUGPHHeFLKa2jXMbZh0N3iDOmgbUZNnOa7aDQ LIbC6AzjXYvykiM52C14Y6PjmHNOLRhLo24H8YpNDRyx2W5zwmgaq5e873a66MBeIPb6 a3bHJp+8aiY6mE2pFjhx+Azsn8dKckOZ/xLXBL3hpg+CPb/8q9NUHb+KcA58XBZOvPhu +6SA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDylweHf+2YJTf9m2PldPa0Iaz3CHubj/Al12cj2tBPX1WeJwPH/ yd5no/74U9EwESym/OirYCK5In5j9jwuGVHdouHYxgopG3w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5Iw1ZrrIF00AD9vMIIR0FBMB7YHw0cBmnYzZ6IwcsAh0Amu1jL/6rAr/520K1ivF/cnDJjUgSMvM7TDj6iSrk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e3d8:0:b0:439:4048:8534 with SMTP id k24-20020a67e3d8000000b0043940488534mr493582vsm.25.1685438641739; Tue, 30 May 2023 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230309085645.1630826-1-ndabilpuram@marvell.com> <20230411110553.25f7c038@hermes.local> <5925463.UjTJXf6HLC@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 14:53:35 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Nithin Dabilpuram , Akhil Goyal , jerinj@marvell.com, dev@dpdk.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , techboard@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org > > > > > + */ > > > > > + uint32_t ingress_oop : 1; > > > > > + > > > > > /** Reserved bit fields for future extension > > > > > * > > > > > * User should ensure reserved_opts is cleared as it may change in > > > > > @@ -282,7 +293,7 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_sa_options { > > > > > * > > > > > * Note: Reduce number of bits in reserved_opts for every new option. > > > > > */ > > > > > - uint32_t reserved_opts : 17; > > > > > + uint32_t reserved_opts : 16; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > NAK > > > > Let me repeat the reserved bit rant. YAGNI > > > > > > > > Reserved space is not usable without ABI breakage unless the existing > > > > code enforces that reserved space has to be zero. > > > > > > > > Just saying "User should ensure reserved_opts is cleared" is not enough. > > > > > > Yes. I think, we need to enforce to have _init functions for the > > > structures which is using reserved filed. > > > > > > On the same note on YAGNI, I am wondering why NOT introduce > > > RTE_NEXT_ABI marco kind of scheme to compile out ABI breaking changes. > > > By keeping RTE_NEXT_ABI disable by default, enable explicitly if user > > > wants it to avoid waiting for one year any ABI breaking changes. > > > There are a lot of "fixed appliance" customers (not OS distribution > > > driven customer) they are willing to recompile DPDK for new feature. > > > What we are loosing with this scheme? > > > > RTE_NEXT_ABI is described in the ABI policy. > > We are not doing it currently, but I think we could > > when it is not too much complicate in the code. > > > > The only problems I see are: > > - more #ifdef clutter > > - 2 binary versions to test > > - CI and checks must handle RTE_NEXT_ABI version > > I think, we have two buckets of ABI breakages via RTE_NEXT_ABI > > 1) Changes that introduces compilation failures like adding new > argument to API or change API name etc > 2) Structure size change which won't affect the compilation but breaks > the ABI for shared library usage. > > I think, (1) is very distributive, and I don't see recently such > changes. I think, we should avoid (1) for non XX.11 releases.(or two > or three-year cycles if we decide that path) > > The (2) comes are very common due to the fact HW features are > evolving. I think, to address the (2), we have two options > a) Have reserved fields and have _init() function to initialize the structures > b) Follow YAGNI style and introduce RTE_NEXT_ABI for structure size change. > > The above concerns[1] can greatly reduce with option b OR option a. > > [1] > 1) more #ifdef clutter > For option (a) this is not needed or option (b) the clutter will be > limited, it will be around structure which add the new filed and > around the FULL block where new functions are added (not inside the > functions) > > 2) 2 binary versions to test > For option (a) this is not needed, for option (b) it is limited as for > new features only one needs to test another binary (rather than NOT > adding a new feature). > > 3) CI and checks must handle RTE_NEXT_ABI version > > I think, it is cheap to add this, at least for compilation test. > > IMO, We need to change the API break release to 3 year kind of time > frame to have very good end user experience > and allow ABI related change to get in every release and force > _rebuild_ shared objects in major LTS release. > > I think, in this major LTS version(23.11) if we can decide (a) vs (b) > then we can align the code accordingly . e.s.p for (a) we need to add > _init() functions. > > Thoughts? Not much input from mailing list. Can we discuss this next TB meeting? Especially how to align with next LTS release on -YAGNI vs reserved fileds with init() -What it takes to Extend the API breaking release more than a year as first step.