From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
To: Dan Gora <dg@adax.com>
Cc: "Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"Jerin Jacob" <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: resolve getentropy at run time for random seed
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:41:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1f83e76a08d238915a2612222f8c93000fae296.camel@debian.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGyogRYwoF37jsM9UK-8XR+sF2kEoiC+uXPMa-rZG9Bhnn6-XA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 13:57 -0300, Dan Gora wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:19 PM Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 14:38 -0300, Dan Gora wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > > > /dev/urandom is basically only a different interface to the same
> > > > > > underlying mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the whole story though - while the end result when all
> > > > works is the same, there are important differences in getting there.
> > > > There's a reason a programmatic interface was added - it's just better
> > > > in general.
> > > > Just to name one - opening files has implications for LSMs like
> > > > SELinux. You now need a specific policy to allow it, which means
> > > > applications that upgrade from one version of DPDK to the next will
> > > > break.
> > >
> > > DPDK opens _tons_ of files. This would not be the first file that DPDK
> > > has to open. And it's not like /dev/urandom is a new interface. It's
> > > been around forever.
> >
> > That might be the case, but it is not reason in itself to make things
> > harder. Especially in light of the new stability promise - this might
> > or might not be considered part of it, but it's worth mentioning at the
> > very least, as it has a real impact on users.
>
> "make things harder" seems especially subjective.. I would argue that
> I am in fact making things much easier by removing unnecessary
> dependecies
For someone with selinux, things would be harder. It's a consequence
worth highlighting, that's all.
> > > If this is such a major problem, then that would argue for using the
> > > dlsym()/dlopen() method to try to find the getentropy glibc function
> > > that I sent in v3 of these patches.
> > >
> > > > In general, I do not think we should go backwards. The programmatic
> > > > interface to the random pools are good and we should use them by
> > > > default - of course by all means add fallbacks to urandom if they are
> > > > not available.
> > >
> > > The original problem was that the "programmatic interface to the
> > > random pools" (that is, getentropy()) can only be determined at
> > > compilation time and if found introduce a new dependency on glibc 2.25
> > > that can easily be avoided by emulating it (as I did here in v4 of the
> > > patches) or by trying to dynamically find the symbol at run time using
> > > dlopen()/dlsym() (as I did in v3 of the patches).
> > >
> > > > But as Stephen said glibc generally does not support compiling on new +
> > > > running on old - so if it's not this that breaks, it will be something
> > > > else.
> > >
> > > Well that's not necessarily true. Most glibc interfaces have been
> > > around forever and you can easily see what versions of glibc are
> > > needed by running ldd on your application. I don't see the point in
> > > introducing a new dependency on a very recent version of glibc which
> > > is not supported by all supported DPDK platforms when it can easily be
> > > worked around.
> > >
> > > The issue here is that the original patch to add getentropy():
> > > 1) Added a _new_ dependency on glibc 2.25.
> > > 2) Added a _new_ dependency that the rdseed CPU flag on the execution
> > > machine has to match the complication machine.
> > > 3) Has different behavior if the DPDK is compiled with meson or with
> > > Make on the same complication platform.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > dan
> >
> > Adding a new dependecy happens only when building with the new version
> > of the library. If it's not available, then there's no new dependency.
>
> But you also do not get to use the new getentropy() if you happen to
> compile on a system which does not have the latest glibc, or if you
> use the makefile system..
And that's perfectly fine - backward compatibility workarounds are not
a problem to me.
> > It sounds to me like you are trying to add workarounds for issues in
> > your downstream build/deployment model, where your build dependencies
> > are newer than your runtime dependencies. This in general is rarely
> > well supported.
>
> I am fully aware of that. I am not adding "workarounds", I am
> eliminating unnecessary dependencies which probably never should have
> been introduced in the first place.
It's not unnecessary. It's a better interface, and worth using if
available.
> > Now I'm fine with adding workarounds as _fallbacks_ - what I am
> > explicitly NACKing is forcibly restricting to the least common
> > denominator because of issues in a third party build/deployment system
> > that doesn't follow the common norm.
>
> ugh.. this is the exact _opposite_ of what this patch does. It is not
> restricting anything to a least common denominator. It is allowing
> the DPDK to use the "best" available function, regardless of the build
> system.
>
> Restricting to the least common denominator is what the original patch did...
This is restricting to the least common denominator of /dev/urandom,
which is a bad interface, frail with issues that everybody is moving
away from, in favour of the programmatic API that this patch is
removing, in order to fix a corner case with a non-standard, third-
party build system that downgrades dependencies at runtime vs build
time.
> > This is especially true when dealing with RNG APIs, where the tiniest
> > and most innocent-looking mistake could have disastrous consequences.
>
> This does not change the functionality of the RNG at all. It just
> makes it work in the way that it was intended. These changes were
> only introduced into 19.08, so they are not historical artifacts or
> anything.
It's reimplementing a syscall using a different interface which has
different semantics. A small mistake there is going to cost us dearly.
--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-30 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-21 19:54 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] eal: choose initial PRNG seed source at runtime Dan Gora
2020-04-21 19:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal: check for rdseed at run time for random seed Dan Gora
2020-04-22 8:22 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-04-21 19:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: resolve getentropy " Dan Gora
2020-04-21 21:03 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-04-21 21:08 ` Dan Gora
2020-04-22 8:28 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-04-22 17:44 ` Dan Gora
2020-04-22 20:14 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-04-22 20:35 ` Dan Gora
2020-04-23 10:04 ` Luca Boccassi
2020-04-23 17:38 ` Dan Gora
2020-04-27 12:44 ` Luca Boccassi
2020-04-27 16:57 ` Dan Gora
2020-04-30 8:41 ` Luca Boccassi [this message]
2020-04-30 20:43 ` Dan Gora
2020-05-01 10:33 ` Luca Boccassi
2020-05-01 21:05 ` Dan Gora
2020-05-04 8:04 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-05-04 14:13 ` Dan Gora
2020-05-04 14:19 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-02 5:10 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-09 15:37 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-10 8:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-06-10 8:33 ` Luca Boccassi
2023-06-12 15:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-06-10 8:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-23 12:36 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-04-23 17:27 ` Dan Gora
2020-04-21 20:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] eal: choose initial PRNG seed source at runtime Dan Gora
2020-04-21 20:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] eal: check for rdseed at run time for random seed Dan Gora
2020-04-21 20:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] eal: resolve getentropy " Dan Gora
2020-04-22 18:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] eal: choose initial PRNG seed source at runtime Dan Gora
2020-04-22 18:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] eal: check for rdseed at run time for random seed Dan Gora
2020-04-22 18:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] eal: resolve getentropy " Dan Gora
2020-04-22 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] eal: choose initial PRNG seed source at runtime Dan Gora
2020-04-22 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] eal: check for rdseed at run time for random seed Dan Gora
2020-04-22 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] eal: emulate glibc getentropy for initial " Dan Gora
2020-04-23 2:39 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-04-23 17:42 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-29 9:30 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-06-29 17:57 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-29 20:57 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-06-29 9:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] eal: choose initial PRNG seed source at runtime Mattias Rönnblom
2020-06-29 18:01 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-29 18:04 ` Dan Gora
2020-06-29 21:05 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2020-06-29 21:14 ` Dan Gora
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=f1f83e76a08d238915a2612222f8c93000fae296.camel@debian.org \
--to=bluca@debian.org \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dg@adax.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).