preadv2 not found during linking

[NobodyXu]

Ref: rust-lang/cc-rs#1039

On older glibc version, the preadv2 symbol isn't available.

I think it might makes sense to use syscall directly to avoid this link-time issue.

[NobodyXu]

Switching to using syscall would also enable it to be used on musl.

[NobodyXu]

From preadv64v2.c and preadv2 from glibc:

ssize_t result = SYSCALL_CANCEL(preadv2, fd, vector, count,
				   LO_HI_LONG(offset), flags);

[NobodyXu]

For LO_HI_LONG:

// x86_64
#define LO_HI_LONG(val) (val), 0

// x32
#define LO_HI_LONG(val) (val)

// Other
/* Provide a macro to pass the off{64}_t argument on p{readv,writev}{64}.  */
#define LO_HI_LONG(val) \
 (long) (val), \
 (long) (((uint64_t) (val)) >> 32)

I scrapped it from https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/glibc-2.39/source/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysdep.h#L94 , https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/glibc-2.39/source/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/sysdep.h#L386 , and https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/glibc-2.39/source/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/x32/sysdep.h#L27

[weihanglo]

Thanks for the investigation.

Before implementing this, I would suggest we re-evaluate the value we gain from this Linux specific optimization. If it is pretty beneficial, then we can consider adding it, otherwise this might introduce a bit too many complexity and compatibility issues, and I'd rather remove preadv2.

[weihanglo]

By re-evaluations, I mean something like listing out in which situation preadv2 would help, and how common they are, as well as looking into the performance side like benchmarking, especially real-world benchmarks.

[ofek]

Can we please start off by reverting so that builds everywhere start passing once again?

[NobodyXu]

By re-evaluations, I mean something like listing out in which situation preadv2 would help, and how common they are,

preadv2 would help in situations where procfs isn't present and jobserver is given a pipe instead of fifo.

It's possible that some dev envs block access to procfs due to safety/sandboxing reason.

cc @the8472 since he might have more knowledge of this and how to handle it

Mote that preadv2 is currently disabled on musl due to musl not supporting it yet.

[weihanglo]

It's possible that some dev envs block access to procfs due to safety/sandboxing reason.

Is jobserver completely unusable without this optimization for this situation? That being said, if a simple syscall can resolve the issue without breaking old kernel/glibc, I am pretty okay with it. We already have similar work like: https://github.com/rust-lang/jobserver-rs/blob/7b96b4170e1e7cbeceb95508fb18de8339c9c3dc/src/unix.rs#L70-L72

[the8472]

preadv2 also helps in the sense that the FD does not have to be set to O_NONBLOCK which allows the acquire path continue to use blocking reads which are more efficient on pipes than the poll + non-blocking read dance.

That being said, if a simple syscall can resolve the issue without breaking old kernel/glibc, I am pretty okay with it. We already have similar work like:

https://github.com/rust-lang/jobserver-rs/blob/7b96b4170e1e7cbeceb95508fb18de8339c9c3dc/src/unix.rs#L70-L72

Yes, the other calls should have used the same pattern.

[ofek]

Is there anything I can do to help expedite the release? It looks like others are increasingly affected by this.

[groovybits]

Is there anything I can do to help expedite the release? It looks like others are increasingly affected by this.

I wonder how many don't even understand what the issue is when it happens. I luckly traced it back through the cc crate, but it was really a stretch to have to note the update 3 hours before and then people stating it is this jobserver-rs. This for me is an application that should build fine with cargo-c as a popular utility used in gstreamer rs. Which currently breaks without a wedge like I inserted forcing a special version of cargo-c downgrading cc temporarily and effectively bypassing this for now. Not a pretty thing to have to do :/ for many it just would result in thinking something is broken with gstreamer or anything based on cargo-c building. It is a "break" that is a huge show stopper if using cargo-c and not knowing how to shim it to work. (maybe I am being too dramatic, yet I was up 3am about done with a huge RPM build that broke suddenly without explanation or logic till I tracked this down taking a 2-3 hours side-track task. Surprised I figured it out and kept going forward with my work, didn't expect such a thing to happen, feels like a flaw to be able to break the stable release through something like this plus having such a convoluted path for testing/confirming staging with such changes that can do this sort of breakage.).

[NobodyXu]

It's unfortunate, I didn't realise that the preadv2 API is way too new that glibc still don't have it.

[NobodyXu]

Is there anything I can do to help expedite the release? It looks like others are increasingly affected by this.

Already pinged petrochenkov on zulip, hopefully a new release will be published soon

[workingjubilee]

It's unfortunate, I didn't realise that the preadv2 API is way too new that glibc still don't have it.

The dilemma is that our platform support looks like this, so we support glibc 2.17: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/platform-support.html

In fact, our baseline for Linux kernels definitely don't support this!

[weihanglo]

The preadv2 usage is reverted in [email protected], so everything should be fine now. Thank you for your patience people :)

[sunshowers]

Thanks -- could jobserver 0.1.30 be yanked so downstream consumers get the right message?

[ofek]

Everything works for me now, thanks so much!

[NobodyXu]

I think we should also run CI on musl, on linux musl and gnu have enough differences for them to be considered as two different targets.