-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move the working BinaryFormatter implementation to a NuGet package #103255
Conversation
...s/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/ref/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.csproj
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...s/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/ref/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.csproj
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...s/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/src/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.csproj
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...s/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/src/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.csproj
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Yes, I think we need to do this. We shouldn't ship a new package with RID specific assets in it. Either option sounds fine to me. |
...lization.Formatters/src/System/Runtime/Serialization/Formatters/Binary/BinaryObjectReader.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
The mobile was special-cases since the BF was unconditionally disabled inbox for mobile, while the non-mobile platforms allowed opt-in. We should get rid of all special casing of mobile now that the BF is unconditionally disable inbox for all RIDs:
|
...zation.Formatters/src/System/Runtime/Serialization/Formatters/Binary/BinaryFormatter.Core.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...zation.Formatters/src/System/Runtime/Serialization/Formatters/Binary/BinaryFormatter.Core.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Jan Kotas <jkotas@microsoft.com>
|
||
if (IsNativeAot) | ||
{ | ||
Console.WriteLine("BinaryFormatter is disabled in NativeAOT"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you intend to leave these Console.WriteLines in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do/did. When a test wants to use BinaryFormatter it leaves a place where it becomes clear why it's there or not.
But, if there's objection, I can certainly remove them.
@@ -1,20 +1,24 @@ | |||
<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk"> | |||
|
|||
<PropertyGroup> | |||
<TargetFrameworks>$(NetCoreAppCurrent);$(NetCoreAppCurrent)-browser;$(NetCoreAppCurrent)-ios;$(NetCoreAppCurrent)-tvos;$(NetCoreAppCurrent)-android</TargetFrameworks> | |||
<TargetFrameworks>$(NetCoreAppCurrent);$(NetCoreAppMinimum)</TargetFrameworks> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need to build this for .NET 8?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's the best/only way I could find for having two builds for the DLL, one where BF works (net8/NuGet) and one where it doesn't (net9/shared runtime).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where are the problems with building the non-working inbox version via independent project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm. The original plan was to typeforward BinaryFormatter out into a new library and do the package trick there (which would still have required making two copies), but it turns out that System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.dll is itself basically the minimum closure of BinaryFormatter.
It sounds like your suggestion is to sort of do that again, making something like
src/libraries/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/src/ : IsPackable, net9
src/libraries/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Inbox/src/ : !IsPackable, net9, also claim to be System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.dll, <Compile Include=../../System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/src/AllTheThingsThatArentBinaryFormatter />
I don't know how well our build system would like that. And since the preview snap date is Tuesday, I don't know that I have the time to find out before then. We could explore it after.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, something like that. The current scheme where the build for NetCoreAppMinimum is meant for NetCoreAppCurrent is not easy to understand. It is fine to explore something better later. It is possible that what you have put together is the best out of all bad solutions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
NuGet limits us here. It doesn't support specifying multiple TFMs that map to the same TargetFrameworkMoniker+TargetPlatformMoniker tuple in a project. There's a proposal up to fix that eventually but until then, separate projects need to be used in such scenarios.
We have multiple source generator project files per rdifferent roslyn targeting pack version because of the exact same reason.
I would agree with Jan that the current solution might be good enough for what's proposed.
...zation.Formatters/src/System/Runtime/Serialization/Formatters/Binary/BinaryFormatter.Core.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
MethodInfo? targetMethod = typeof(SerializationInfo).GetMethod( | ||
"StartDeserialization", | ||
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static, | ||
Type.EmptyTypes); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Worth caching (or caching a delegate created to it)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be even better to use UnsafeAccessor - no reflection, no delegates, no caching. UnsafeAccessor
shipped in 8.0 that is the current NetCoreAppMinimum
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
StartDeserialization
returns a public type that isn't in the reference assembly; it looks like UnsafeAccessor
requires an exact signature match. So, unless there's an unsafe typeref I don't think we can use it here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CreateDelegate
is similarly not an option, it refuses to loose-bind the return type (struct).
Slow invoke works, or we can add another method in corelib that does the boxing to IDisposable there so it can be bound with UnsafeAccessor. I'm guessing we don't like that option, so I'm guessing we're sticking with slow-invoke. But either way I've moved this to a different type, and am at least saving the MethodInfo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we rather get rid of this (it would be my preference), or turn it into a public API?
The non-public dependencies of OOB nuget packages like this one are always factory for problems.
src/libraries/System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters/tests/TestConfiguration.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
{ | ||
internal sealed class SerializationGuard | ||
{ | ||
private static readonly MethodInfo? s_startDeserialization = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is ok for now but should probably be removed before RTM. Serialization Guard has been a contentious feature and there's no guarantee it will retain its current API shape (or even exist at all!) going forward. Private reflection from an OOB package back into the shared framework adds unnecessary risk.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree. Can we just remove the whole thing, both from here and anywhere that's enlisting in serialization guard?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll remove the invocation from here, since Levi's already cool with that. I'll let the "can we delete SG altogether" fight continue elsewhere, since BinaryFormatter isn't the only thing activating it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. There are some imperfections, but I am fine with them.
src/libraries/Common/tests/TestUtilities/System/PlatformDetection.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ion.cs Co-authored-by: Adam Sitnik <adam.sitnik@gmail.com>
/ba-g The one reported test failure is known issue #101409, so the Build Analysis should be green. |
This change makes System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.dll build for both NetCoreAppMinimum and NetCoreAppCurrent.
Points of contention:
Contributes to #98245.