[ofw] WDK build environment migration thoughts

Wed Apr 30 12:19:48 PDT 2008

Yikes!  You disable warning C4305 for everyone including ib_types.h?  Do you really think this is appropriate???

The more I look at the patch, the more I think it should be rolled back, sorry.

-Fab

From: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Alex Naslednikov
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:20 AM
To: Alex Naslednikov; Smith, Stan; Ishai Rabinovitz
Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofw] WDK build environment migration thoughts

Hello,

I committed our WDK and __ptr64 patch into WinOF trunk, and WinOF and WinIB trunks were synchronized again.

You can find below some further explanations :

1. IBAL compiles now with WDK6001.18001. According to Microsoft, it should be the last and official release.

We preserved the backward compatibility with DDK, but some intermediate versions of WDK may be incompatible

2. Please, be aware that one has to change WinOF modules that aren't in WinIB stack (like additional ulps : udapl, vnic etc.) according to new methodology

Also, I'd like to point your attention, that these modules will work as is on homogeneous systems (x86, x64), but not on mixed systems (x86 application on x64 kernel)

In addition, Microsoft fixed an internal compiler bug when compiling modules with long (__ptr64) pointers on functions (occurred only in x86 CHECKED environment).

So, you should not have problem with compilation after adjusting makefiles

3. This revision contains:

 3.1. All bugfixes from WinOF trunk, from rev. 939 to 1067

 3.2. Mellanox __ptr64 solution and WDK poring, starting from rev. 2164

 3.3. All bugfixes and patches from connectx branches (both Mellanox and WinOF)

It was a large amount of code to be merged from 4 different svn trees (trunk and connectx branch in WinOF, and trunk and connectx branch in WinIB).

We will appreciate your code review, just to be sure that we didn't forget to insert any minor patch or bug fix.

4. I carefully tested new trunk inside Mellanox, on different platforms, both with DDK and WDK compilers. Please, update us about every minor problem during your testing.

Thanks,

Naslednikov Alexander (a.k.a XaleX)

Windows Team

Mellanox Technologies

_____________________________________________

From:   Alex Naslednikov

Sent:   Monday, April 21, 2008 7:15 PM

To:     Alex Naslednikov; 'Smith, Stan'; Ishai Rabinovitz

Cc:     'ofw at lists.openfabrics.org'

Subject:        RE: [ofw] WDK build environment migration thoughts

Hi all,
I would like to repost my previous message, because I haven't received yet your comments.
Our regression seems to be stable, so we are going to commit the change into WinOF trunk the nearest time.
For you convenience, I also provide some typical changes as a patch (attached to this mail). Please, read the explanation below before - it will help you a lot.
Be aware that all the modules not contained in Mellanox WinIB stack (like udapl, vnic) should be also changed according to this methodology.

It is very large change, so I'll appreciate your time and effort while reviewing the methodology and the patch itself.

Thanks,

Naslednikov Alexander (a.k.a XaleX)
Windows Team
Mellanox Technologies

_____________________________________________

From:   Alex Naslednikov

Sent:   Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:09 PM

To:     'Smith, Stan'; Ishai Rabinovitz

Cc:     ofw at lists.openfabrics.org

Subject:        RE: [ofw] WDK build environment migration thoughts

Hi all,

It's a good idea to clarify some points before announcing Mellanox patch for WDK porting and __ptr64 problems.

Hope, these explanations will be informative enough and not so long.

1. __ptr64 problem

Briefly speaking, this problem arises when copying 32bit len pointer into 64bit len pointer. In this case, signed pointer extension will take place.

How it's applicable to WinOF ?  A lot of pointer were declared to be __ptr64 (i.e., to be always "long", even in 32bit kernel systems), that's to preserve on unique size of structs used in IOCTL calls.  The main problem it will cause is between 32bit user applications and 64bit kernel application.

When user code do operation like

s_ptr = &my_struct;

my_type* __ptr64 ptr = s_ptr;

Than kernel will receive ptr with invalid upper bits data (4 bytes FF).

To avoid signed pointer extension, PtrToPtr64() function should be used.

Also, I found some other places where dangerous signed pointer extension took place, even on 32bit kernel.

Yet another problem that arises with __ptr64 attribute is internal compiler error (C1001)  in WDK when using __ptr64 pointer to function (callback)

This problem was described in ofw discussion, you can see also :

http://blogs.msdn.com/texblog/archive/2005/10/31/487436.aspx

http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/2007-July/001613.html (posted by Jan from OFW)

Our solution:

1. Initially, we decided to remove all __ptr64 attributes except those ones inside IOCTL structures. After, put PtrToPtr64() conversion on every assignment to long pointer.

(like my_type* __ptr64 ptr = PtrToPtr64(s_ptr);  )

During this solution, we changed a huge amount of code, so patch became unreadable. And it was difficult to validate that all long pointer (with __ptr64 attribute) were used in a proper manner

2. So, we decided about another solution:

 All __ptr64 occurrences were replaced by either:

 i) TO_LONG_PTR(type, field) macro, when occurred inside structure

ii) VOID_PTR64 macro otherwise (defined as void macro)

#define CONCAT(str1, str2) str1##str2

#define TO_LONG_PTR(type,member_name) \

    union { type member_name;  uint64_t CONCAT(member_name,_padding) ; }

Thus, we can both preserve on a uniform shapes of structs in user and kernel and to avoid unsafe pointer arithmetic !

The patch now is much more readable, but it sill consist of thousands lines.

2. Migration to WDK

Main issue here was to preserve on backward compatibility with DDK

We were able to compile our stack with WDK, while the main problems we found were :

1. WDK uses newer version of SDK (SDK Vista). So, when using 2 or more versions of SDK on the same build machine, one has to update

PLATFORM_SDK_PATH variable to point on the proper version of SDK (for example, PLATFORM_SDK_PATH=%sysdrive%:\PROGRA~1\MI2578~1\windows\v6.1)

2.verify.src script in WDK (new add-on) checks if your SOURCES file is in appropriate format.

For example, you can't set implicitly path to system .dll in TARGETLIBS, but to use USE_<MODULE_NAME> =1 macro

Example:

Old code :

 ....

TARGETLIBS= \

   $(CRT_LIB_PATH)\msvcprt.lib\

   $(SDK_LIB_PATH)\Ws2_32.lib\

   $(TARGETPATH)\*\mtcr.lib

New code :

USE_MSVCRT=1

USE_NTDLL=1

TARGETLIBS= \

   $(SDK_LIB_PATH)\Ws2_32.lib\

   $(TARGETPATH)\*\mtcr.lib

3. Some other problems, like mulitple includes error in .rc files, or problem with substituing more than one symbol constant into string in Makefiles (some version of WDK)

Currently, we continue testing and will advertise these patches right after the testing will finish

Naslednikov Alexander (a.k.a XaleX)

Windows Team

Mellanox Technologies

-----Original Message-----

From: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Stan

Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:10 PM

To: Ishai Rabinovitz

Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org

Subject: [ofw] WDK build environment migration thoughts

Hello,

  I strongly believe it would help the WinOF community in transitioning to the WDK build environment if the connectX branch

(svn:gen1\branches\ConnectX) was used as a WDK build environment staging grounds prior to merging the WDK modifications into the mainline trunk.

This has been talked about before although it still (as of last Friday) does not build using the latest WDK version.

One week prior to merging the WDK fixes into the mainline trunk, if you were to push all the WDK fixes into the ConnectX branch and then advertise on the ofw mailing list the availability of a WDK build branch along with

  1) how to build in the WDK environment,

     which version of the WDK is required + a URL link where to get the WDK.

  2) An explanation of why and how the __ptr64 attributes were removed along with how

     others should correct their codes containing __ptr64 attributes.

  3) updates to the WinOF wiki page describing how to build in the WDK env.

Let this branch exist for one week, receiving feedback from the list and then merge into the mainline trunk.

Using this approach is certainly community friendly and may prevent developer surprises.

ConnectX branch availability dates plus when the actual WDK fixes would be merged into the mainline trunk would be published beforehand.

Thanks for your consideration,

Stan.

_______________________________________________

ofw mailing list

ofw at lists.openfabrics.org

http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20080430/2ee56c77/attachment.html>