On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 02:36:43PM +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) > Whats going on here? A 19.11 checkout should have DT_NEEDED encoded in the scheme lib*.so.19.x, no?
> 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 > Shouldn't ldconfig fix that? i.e. when you install libraries, you run ldconfig and the various minor release libraries should be symlinks to the latest version of the minor release. That is to say, your library patch for, for example, librte_pnd_bnxt should look like: librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.02 librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20 => librete_pmd_bnxt.so.20 librte_pmd_bnxt.so => librte_pmd_bnxt.so.20.02 Which will allow older built binaries to link at run time. > 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. > >
