The fallout is a bit worse than first anticipated.
I converted my code to use the vl_api_*_t_endian functions rather than doing
the hton*/ntoh* by hand (since a bunch of them were now doing the wrong thing),
and discovered another bigger problem. Unions are not handled correctly by the
generated endian functions e.g.,:
static inline void vl_api_punt_t_endian (vl_api_punt_t *a)
{
int i __attribute__((unused));
vl_api_punt_type_t_endian(&a->type);
vl_api_punt_union_t_endian(&a->punt);
}
static inline void vl_api_punt_union_t_endian (vl_api_punt_union_t *a)
{
int i __attribute__((unused));
vl_api_punt_exception_t_endian(&a->exception);
vl_api_punt_l4_t_endian(&a->l4);
vl_api_punt_ip_proto_t_endian(&a->ip_proto);
}
The second function there is flipping bits in the same memory space (union)
multiple times in different ways according to each structure in the union.
Anything that has a union in the API will suffer this same bug; the recent enum
size changes to very common types (address family, ip proto, etc) merely cause
this bug to be hit more ofetn.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On May 2, 2020, at 8:20 AM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some recent changes related to packed enums in the API have broken already
> written code for low level API use. I think the main commit that did this was
> the one that added __packed__ to the generated enum declaration, but there
> are the related changes that add the enum size declarations I guess. Those
> appear to be percolating slowly (e.g., in ip_types.api), although version
> numbers are not being changed inline (e.g., "enum address_family" went from
> default u32 to u8 but the ip_types.api version didn't change)
>
> I understand that the API needs to be able to change, but I'm using like
> maybe 7 or 8 API calls and I now have conditional code for seemingly every
> release since 19.04. It's frustrating.
>
> The project encourages running the latest code by moving support away from
> old releases quickly, but then is making it hard to follow with API churn.
>
> That said I would not be being bitten by this particular change I think if I
> were using the higher level API; however, I have resisted this b/c that API
> with synchronous calls requiring a callback for results is ... inelegant, to
> put it nicely. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#16222): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16222
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/73940014/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
