> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:34 PM
> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>
> Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag
>
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 02:02:03PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 7:05 PM
> > > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>
> > > Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 12:04:57PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 5:04 PM
> > > > > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>
> > > > > Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > > > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:44:52AM +0000, Jerin Jacob
> > > > > Kollanukkaran
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 11:41 PM
> > > > > > > To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>;
> > > > > > > dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal
> > > > > > > tag
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 05:45:41PM +0100, Bruce Richardson
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 04:24:09PM +0000, Jerin Jacob
> > > > > > > > Kollanukkaran
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2019 12:14 AM
> > > > > > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Jerin Jacob
> > > > > > > > > > Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Bruce Richardson
> > > > > > > > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > > > > > > > > <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce
> > > > > > > > > > __rte_internal tag
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey-
> > > > > > > > > > Based on our recent conversations regarding the use
> > > > > > > > > > of symbols only meant for internal dpdk consumption
> > > > > > > > > > (between dpdk libraries), this is an idea that I've
> > > > > > > > > > come up with that I'd like to get some feedback on
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Summary:
> > > > > > > > > > 1) We have symbols in the DPDK that are meant to be
> > > > > > > > > > used between DPDK libraries, but not by applications
> > > > > > > > > > linking to them
> > > > > > > > > > 2) We would like to document those symbols in the
> > > > > > > > > > code, so as to note them clearly as for being meant
> > > > > > > > > > for internal use only
> > > > > > > > > > 3) Linker symbol visibility is a very coarse grained
> > > > > > > > > > tool, and so there is no good way in a single library
> > > > > > > > > > to mark items as being meant for use only by other
> > > > > > > > > > DPDK libraries, at least not without some extensive
> > > > > > > > > > runtime checking
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Proposal:
> > > > > > > > > > I'm proposing that we introduce the __rte_internal tag.
> > > > > > > > > > From a coding standpoint it works a great deal like
> > > > > > > > > > the __rte_experimental tag in that it expempts the
> > > > > > > > > > tagged symbol from ABI constraints (as the only users
> > > > > > > > > > should be represented in the DPDK build environment).
> > > > > > > > > > Additionally, the __rte_internal macro resolves
> > > > > > > > > > differently based on the definition of the
> > > > > > > > > > BUILDING_RTE_SDK flag (working under the assumption
> > > > > > > > > > that said flag should only ever be set if we are
> > > > > > > > > > actually building DPDK libraries which will make use
> > > > > > > > > > of internal calls). If the BUILDING_RTE_SDK flag is
> > > > > > > > > > set __rte_internal resolves to __attribute__((section
> > > > > > > > > > "text.internal)), placing it in a special text section
> > > > > > > > > > which is then used to validate that the the symbol
> > > > > > > > > > appears in the INTERNAL section of the corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > library version
> > > map).
> > > > > > > > > > If BUILDING_RTE_SDK is not set, then __rte_internal
> > > > > > > > > > resolves to
> > > > > > > __attribute__((error("..."))), which causes any caller of
> > > > > > > the tagged function to throw an error at compile time,
> > > > > > > indicating that the symbol is not available for external use.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This isn't a perfect solution, as applications can
> > > > > > > > > > still hack around it of course,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think, one way to, avoid, hack around could be to,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) at config stage, create a random number for the
> > > > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > 2) introduce RTE_CALL_INTERNAL macro for calling
> > > > > > > > > internal function, compare the generated random number
> > > > > > > > > for allowing the calls to make within the library. i.e
> > > > > > > > > leverage the fact that external library would never know
> > > > > > > > > the random number generated for the DPDK build
> > > > > > > and internal driver code does.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do we really need to care about this. If have some
> > > > > > > > determined enough to hack around our limitations, then
> > > > > > > > they surely know that they have an unsupported
> > > > > > > > configuration. We just need to protect against inadvertent use
> of internals, IMHO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree, I too had thought about doing some sort of internal
> > > > > > > runtime checking to match internal only symbols, such that
> > > > > > > they were only accessable by internally approved users, but
> > > > > > > it started to feel like a great
> > > > > deal of overhead.
> > > > > > > Its a good idea for a general mechanism I think, but I
> > > > > > > believe the value here is more to internally document which
> > > > > > > apis we want to mark as being for internal use only, and
> > > > > > > create a lightweight roadblock at build time to catch users
> inadvertently using them.
> > > > > > > Determined users will get around anything, and theres not
> > > > > > > much we can do to stop
> > > > > them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree too. IMHO, Simply having following items would be
> > > > > > enough
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Avoid exposing the internal function prototype through
> > > > > > public header files
> > > > > > 2) Add @internal to API documentation
> > > > > > 3) Just decide the name space for internal API for tooling(i.e
> > > > > > not start with rte_ or so) Using objdump scheme to detect
> > > > > > internal functions
> > > > > requires the the library to build prior to run the checkpatch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I'm not comfortable with that approach, and I've stated why:
> > > > > 1) Not exposing the functions via header files is a fine start
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Adding internal documentation is also fine, but does nothing
> > > > > to correlate the code implementing those functions to the
> > > > > documentation. Its valuable to have a tag on a function
> > > > > identifying it as
> > > internal only.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Using naming conventions to separate internal only from
> > > > > non-internal functions is a vague approach, requiring future
> > > > > developers to be cogniscent of the convention and make the
> > > > > appropriate naming choices. It also implicitly restricts the
> > > > > abliity for future developers to make naming changes in conflict
> > > > > with that convention
> > > >
> > > > Enforcing the naming convention can be achieved through tooling as
> well.
> > > >
> > > Sure, but why enforce any function naming at all, when you don't have
> to.
> >
> > May I ask, why to enforce __rte_internal, when you don't have to
> >
>
> Because its more clear. Implicitly deciding that any function not prefixed
> with
> rte_ is internal only does nothing to prevent a developer from accidentally
> naming a function incorrectly, exporting it, and allowing a user to call it.
> We
> can move headers all you want, but we provide an ABI guarantee to end
> users, and developers should have a way to clearly record that without
> having to check the documentation for each function that an application
> developer wants to use.
>
> The long and the short of it for me is that I want a way for developers to opt
> their code into an internal only condition, not to just document it as such
> and
> hope its up to date. If they tag a function as __rte_internal then its
> clearly
> marked as internal only, they have checks to ensure that its in the INTERNAL
> section of the version map, and should that header somehow get externally
> exported (see rte_mempool_check_cookies for an example of how thats
> happened), users are prevented from using them at build time, rather than
> having to ask questions on the list, or read documentation after an error to
> find out "oops, shouldn't have done that".
>
> I think you'll find that going through all the header files, and bifurcating
> them
> to public and private headers is a much larger undertaking than just tagging
> those functions accordingly. a quick scan of all our header file for the
> @internal tag shows about 260 instances of such functions, almost all of
> which are published to applications. All of those functions would have to be
> moved to private headers, and their requisite C files would need to be
> updated to include the new header. with the use of __rte_internal, we just
> have tag the functions as such, which can be handled with a cocinelle or awk
> script.
I don't have any strong opinion on name prefix vs marking as __rte_internal.
Or combination of both. I am fine any approach.
I have only strong option on not to induce objdump dependency for checkpatch.
For the reason mentioned in
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-June/134160.html.
>
> Neil
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Adding a tag like __rte_internal creates an interlock
> > > > > whereby, not only are internal functions excused from ABI
> > > > > constraints, but forces developers to intentionally mark their
> > > > > internal functions as being internal in the code, which is
> > > > > beneficial to clarlity of understanding
> > > during the development process.
> > > >
> > > > No issues in adding __rte_internal. But, I am against current
> > > > implementaion, Ie. adding objdump dependency
> > > That dependency already exists for the __rte_external flag
> >
> > Sorry, I could not see the dependency.
> >
> > [master][dpdk.org] $ grep -ri "objdump" devtools/ [master][dpdk.org] $
> > grep -ri "objdump" usertools/ [master][dpdk.org] $ grep -ri
> > "__rte_external" *
> >
> > >
> > > > to checkpatch i.e developer has to build the library first so
> > > > that checkpatch can can know, Is it belongs to internal section or not?
> > > >
> > > What developer is running checkpatch/posting patches without first
> > > building their changes?
> >
> > # it is not developer, The CI/CD tools can quicky check the sanity of
> > patches before the build itself. Why to add unnecessary dependency?
> > # If some PMD is not building if the requirements are not meet(say AES
> > NI PMD for crypto) then how do take care of the dependency.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Adding a tag like __rte_internal is explicit, and allows
> > > > > developers to use a single header file instead of multiple
> > > > > header files if they so choose
> > > > >
> > > > > We went through this with experimental symbols as well[1], and
> > > > > it just makes more sense to me to clearly document in the code
> > > > > what constitutes an internal symbol rather than relying on
> > > > > naming conventions and hoping that developers read the
> > > > > documentation before exporting a symbol publically.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2017-December/083828.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we really wanted to go down that road, we could use a
> > > > > > > mechainsm simmilar to the EXPORT_SYMBOL /
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> > > > > > > infrastructure that the kernel uses, but that would required
> > > > > > > building our own custom linker script, which seems like overkill
> here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > Neil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /Bruce
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
