* Daniel P. Berrangé (berrange@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:44:07PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:47:06AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> > I can think of some options:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 1. Encode unsigned 64-bit integers as signed 64-bit integers.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > This follows the example that most C libraries map JSON ints
> > >> >> > to 'long long int'. This is still relying on undefined
> > >> >> > behaviour as apps don't need to support > 2^53-1.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Apps would need to cast back to 'unsigned long long' for
> > >> >> > those QMP fields they know are supposed to be unsigned.
> > >>
> > >> Ugly. It's also what we did until v2.10, August 2017. QMP's input
> > >> direction still does it, for backward compatibility.
> > >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 2. Encode all 64-bit integers as a pair of 32-bit integers.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > This is fully compliant with the JSON spec as each half
> > >> >> > is fully within the declared limits. App has to split or
> > >> >> > assemble the 2 pieces from/to a signed/unsigned 64-bit
> > >> >> > int as needed.
> > >>
> > >> Differently ugly.
> > >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 3. Encode all 64-bit integers as strings
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The application has todo all parsing/formatting client
> > >> >> > side.
> > >>
> > >> Yet another ugly.
> > >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > None of these changes are backwards compatible, so I doubt we could make
> > >> >> > the change transparently in QMP. Instead we would have to have a
> > >> >> > QMP greeting message capability where the client can request enablement
> > >> >> > of the enhanced integer handling.
> > >>
> > >> We might be able to do option 1 without capability negotiation. v2.10's
> > >> change from option 1 to what we have now produced zero complaints.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, we made that change for a reason, so we may want a
> > >> "send large integers as negative integers" capability regardless.
> > >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Any of the three options above would likely work for libvirt, but I
> > >> >> > would have a slight preference for either 2 or 3, so that we become
> > >> >> > 100% standards compliant.
> > >>
> > >> There's no such thing. You mean "we maximize interoperability with
> > >> common implementations of JSON".
> > >
> > > s/common/any/
> >
> > info: error correction applied, future applications will be silent ;-P
> >
> > >> Let's talk implementation for a bit.
> > >>
> > >> Encoding and decoding integers in funny ways should be fairly easy in
> > >> the QObject visitors. The generated QMP marshallers all use them.
> > >> Trouble is a few commands still bypass the generated marshallers, and
> > >> mess with the QObject themselves:
> > >>
> > >> * query-qmp-schema: minor hack explained in qmp_query_qmp_schema()'s
> > >> comment. Should be harmless.
> > >>
> > >> * netdev_add: not QAPIfied. Eric's patches to QAPIfy it got stuck
> > >> because they reject some abuses like passing numbers and bools as
> > >> strings.
> > >>
> > >> * device_add: not QAPIfied. We're not sure QAPIfication is feasible.
> > >>
> > >> netdev_add and device_add both use qemu_opts_from_qdict(). Perhaps we
> > >> could hack that to mirror what the QObject visitor do.
> > >>
> > >> Else, we might have to do it in the JSON parser. Should be possible,
> > >> but I'd rather not.
> > >>
> > >> >> My preference would be 3 with the strings defined as being
> > >> >> %x lower case hex formated with a 0x prefix and no longer than 18 characters
> > >> >> ("0x" + 16 nybbles). Zero padding allowed but not required.
> > >> >> It's readable and unambiguous when dealing with addresses; I don't want
> > >> >> to have to start decoding (2) by hand when debugging.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yep, that's a good point about readability.
> > >>
> > >> QMP sending all integers in decimal is inconvenient for some values,
> > >> such as addresses. QMP sending all (large) integers in hexadecimal
> > >> would be inconvenient for other values.
> > >>
> > >> Let's keep it simple & stupid. If you want sophistication, JSON is the
> > >> wrong choice.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Option 1 feels simplest.
> > >
> > > But will still fail with any JSON impl that uses double precision floating
> > > point for integers as it will loose precision.
> > >
> > >> Option 2 feels ugliest. Less simple, more interoperable than option 1.
> > >
> > > If we assume any JSON impl can do 32-bit integers without loss of
> > > precision, then I think we can say it is guaranteed portable, but
> > > it is certainly horrible / ugly.
> > >
> > >> Option 3 is like option 2, just not quite as ugly.
> > >
> > > I think option 3 can be guaranteed to be loss-less with /any/ JSON impl
> > > that exists, since you're delegating all string -> int conversion to
> > > the application code taking the JSON parser/formatter out of the equation.
> >
> > Double-checking: do you propose to encode *all* numbers as strings, or
> > just certain "problematic" numbers?
> >
> > If the latter, I guess your idea of "problematic" is "not representable
> > exactly as double precision floating-point".
>
> We have a few options
>
> 1. Use string format for values > 2^53-1, int format below that
> 2. Use string format for all fields which are 64-bit ints whether
> signed or unsigned
> 3. Use string format for all fields which are integers, even 32-bit
> ones
>
> I would probably suggest option 2. It would make the QEMU impl quite
> easy IIUC, we we'd just change the QAPI visitor's impl for the int64
> and uint64 fields to use string format (when the right capability is
> negotiated by QMP).
>
> I include 3 only for completeness - I don't think there's a hugely
> compelling reason to mess with 32-bit ints.
What about when the size is architecture dependent?
> Option 1 is the bare minimum needed to ensure precision, but to me
> it feels a bit dirty to say a given field will have different encoding
> depending on the value. If apps need to deal with string encoding, they
> might as well just use it for all values in a given field.
Yeh, 1 is horrid; it's too easy to miss a case which forgot to handle
the 2^53-1 because we hadn't forced a large value down that check.
Dave
> > > I guess I'd have a preference for option 3 given that it has better
> > > interoperability
> >
> > If we add a QMP capability for interoperability with JSON
> > implementations that set limits on range and precision that are
> > incompatible with the ones QMP sets, one could argue we effectively pay
> > the price for option 3, so we should take it for its benefits.
> >
> > Option 1 without a QMP capability merely reverts the change we made in
> > 2.10. We can do that if we think it's sufficient.
> >
> > You expressed a strong preference for maximizing interoperability (via
> > option 3). Acknowledged. However, I care a lot more about issues we
> > know we have than about issues somebody might have.
> >
> > You mentioned the libvirt's switch to Jansson you had to abort due to
> > QMP sending numbers Jansson refuses to parse. That's the kind of
> > non-hypothetical issue that can make me mess with the QMP language.
> >
> > You wrote Jansson "raises a fatal parse error for unsigned 64-bit values
> > above 2^63-1". Does that mean it rejects 9223372036854775808, but
> > accepts 9223372036854775808.0 (with loss of precision)?
>
> If it sees a '.' in the number, then it call strtod() and checks for
> the overflow conditions.
>
> If it doesn't see a '.' in the number then it calls strtoll and checks
> for the overflow conditions.
>
> So to answer you question, yes, it looks like it will reject
> 9223372036854775808 and accept 9223372036854775808.0 with loss of
> precision.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx / Manchester, UK
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
