Hi,
let me put the two relevant lists back into the CC because the members of those
lists can probably give better input than I.
Quoting Guillem Jover (2022-05-28 19:09:10)
> On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 07:26:02 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> > Package: dpkg
> > Version: 1.21.7
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Tags: patch
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: jo...@debian.org
>
> > when cross compiling, one property of the build system that can
> > influence the contents of the generate binary packages is whether or not
> > the host architecture can be executed. While some platforms can natively
> > execute others (like amd64 can execute i386), other combinations are
> > more surprising. When installing the qemu-user-static package on a
> > system with binfmt-support, then foreign architecture binaries for all
> > architectures qemu supports will suddenly become executable. This is
> > especially tricky because this will also transparently affect chroot
> > builds with sbuild and neither schroot nor unshare isolation can prevent
> > the emulation from happening. The only ways to stop automatic emulation
> > are uninstalling qemu-user-static on the outside of the build chroot,
> > writing 0 to /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/qemu-$arch or running the build
> > with QEMU_VERSION=1 (unreliable). Since transparent foreign architecture
> > emulation is easily present on a developer's machine and thus
> > influencing the build (even when done inside a chroot) it would be
> > useful to record whether or not foreign architecture binaries can be
> > executed in the buildinfo file.
>
> Hmm right. To me it feels more like a taint flag though. The
> compilation and execution of the host program feels a bit meh, but
> there's certainly no other way to fetch that information otherwise.
>
> > I attached a proof-of-concept patch that does exactly that. Since we
> > cannot rely on arch-test being installed in the build environment, this
> > approach cross compiles a small true.c executable for the host
> > architecture. This should always work because gcc is build-essential.
> > The binary outputs a small string instead of just relying on the exit
> > code to guard against QEMU_VERSION=1 "disabling" of emulation. The field
> > 'Can-Execute-Host-Architecture is only added when cross-compiling, i.e
> > when host and build architectures mismatch.
>
> I'm attaching the slightly revised version with few fixes/changes.
Thanks!
> > >From 62179358b57d09fc8c6bb7a59deb128c67cbe522 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
> > Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 07:11:39 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] dpkg-genbuildinfo: when cross-compiling add
> > Can-Execute-Host-Architecture field
>
> > +use File::Temp qw(tmpnam);
>
> This function is marked as obsolete by POSIX, the File::Temp object
> provides a nice interface that can be used instead, perhaps you used
> it but were hit by ETXTBSY errors? (If so closing the descriptor fixes
> the issue, which is what I've done now.) This also means we do not
> need to cleanup the file as the object will do it on its destructor
> when going out of scope.
Yes, I used tmpnam because I got an error that we cannot execute the file as it
was still being written to. While tmpnam might be obsoleted by POSIX, I think
File::Temp uses its own implementation -- at least the docs suggest that it
does. Anyway, this is not really of any importance.
> > +spawn(exec => [ debarch_to_gnutriplet(get_host_arch()) . '-gcc', '-x',
> > 'c', '-o', $tmpname, '-' ],
>
> I added honoring the CC envvar, but can potentially result in building
> for the build instead of host arch, as unfortunately we cannot rely on
> an "external build driver" setting a coherent build environment. So
> should probably go back to hardcoding it, but I'm thinking I should
> move all gcc hardcoding into a new vendor-hook that gets the default
> compiler name.
Yes, by ignoring CC I wanted to make sure that a d/rules cannot choose the
wrong compiler.
> > +if ($? == 0 && $stdout eq "ok") {
> > + $fields->{'Can-Execute-Host-Architecture'} = "true";
> > +} else {
> > + $fields->{'Can-Execute-Host-Architecture'} = "false";
>
> I think a taint flag makes more sense. But it has the problem that
> then you might need to check the dpkg version used to see whether
> the check might have been performed, but I'm not sure whether that'd
> be a concern at all? (If its own field would be strongly favored then
> I think it should use the usual "yes"/"no" values used elsewhere.)
I don't have any strong opinion about this. I think I'd be fine with a taint
flag. If any tool wants to read this out in the future, I don't think that
checking the dpkg version is too much to ask for.
Thanks!
cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-bui
