From: John Keeping <john@metanate.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH] toolchain/toolchain-wrapper: remove --build-id=none option
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 11:07:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201112110717.634931e0.john@metanate.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201111205816.GD3971474@scaer>
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:58:16 +0100
"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
> On 2020-11-11 19:48 +0000, John Keeping spake thusly:
> > The only build-id style that is not reproducible is "uuid", but the
> > default is "sha1" so packages would have to go out of their way to
> > choose a non-reproducible build-id. Having build IDs in general is
> > useful as it can be used to match split debuginfo.
>
> I would think we would then want to make sha1 the explicit build-id,
> rather than merely depend on the default (even though it has been sha1
> since 2007, it may change with future binutils versions).
Unfortunately this is difficult to do - we can't just force
--build-id=sha1 globally as some files really do need to be compiled
without a build ID (the glibc build breaks if you try this).
We could intercept the command line and override the type if --build-id
is specified, but I don't think that's really necessary. Given the
wider push for reproducible builds, it seems that the defaults are
likely to remain reproducible - so as long as the toolchain is the same
then the output will be too.
> > I haven't seen any packages that do this, and if there are any that use
>
> Try mot to use first person in commit message; instead, use a neutral
> third-person. Also, I find your commit message to have things a bit
> shuffled around. We usually liek to have commit logs that explain the
> current status, explain why this is a problem, and explain what is done
> to overcome the problem, For example:
>
> When a reproducible build is attempted (with BR2_REPRODUCIBLE=y), we forcibly
> disable the use of build-ids, on the assumption that they are not reproducible,
> as explained in b285c80143 (toolchain/toolchain-wrapper: explicitly pass
> --build-id=none if BR2_REPRODUCIBLE).
>
> However, only the 'uuid' build-id is not reproducible. 'sha1' (and 'md5') are
> based on the "normative parts of the output contents", so are stable accross
> builds.
>
> Re-enable use of the build-id even in reproducible builds. We do ensure that
> the same build-id type is used, by forcing it to 'sha1'
>
> However, I would still doubt that build-ids are reproducible, even when
> explicitly set to 'sha1', which has been the default since 2007 now, and
> given that the commit referenced above was done because indeed they were
> not reproducible...
The comment on that commit says it's about building in different output
directories, but commit 71d6901 a month later added -ffile-prefix-map
(or overrides of __FILE__/__BASE_FILE__ for older compilers), so perhaps
that has resolved the problem that b285c80143 saw?
I ran two builds (admittedly of a minimal configuration - although it
does include libmount.so.1.1.0 which is referenced in the snippet below)
and the only differences I saw were in .pyc files which seems to be a
result of https://bugs.python.org/issue37596 - I'm planning to
experiment with exporting PYTHONHASHSEED when BR2_REPRODUCIBLE is set to
see if that works around the issue here.
> So, I am not sure what the "normative parts of the output contents" are,
> but it seems that there is something that is not reproducible, that
> influences the build-id. See also the snippet referenced from that
> commit https://gitlab.com/snippets/1886180/raw , which found that the
> the only delta between two reproducible builds was exactly only the
> sha1-based build-id...
I'm not sure there's any way to find out without trying it more widely
:-(
Having done a bit more research to spot the -ffile-prefix-map issue, I'm
actually more confident that this should be okay, so what would you
think about a patch with an improved commit message explaining why
b285c80143 may no longer apply?
Thanks,
John
> > non-reproducible build-ids then that should be treated as a bug in that
> > package like any other reproducibility issue; there is no reason to
> > globally disable build IDs when BR2_REPRODUCIBLE is set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@metanate.com>
> > ---
> > toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.mk | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.mk b/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.mk
> > index 8b551e3a18..56d86fa1ea 100644
> > --- a/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.mk
> > +++ b/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.mk
> > @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ TOOLCHAIN_WRAPPER_OPTS = \
> > $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_OPTIMIZATION))
> >
> > ifeq ($(BR2_REPRODUCIBLE),y)
> > -TOOLCHAIN_WRAPPER_OPTS += -Wl,--build-id=none
> > ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_GCC_AT_LEAST_8),y)
> > TOOLCHAIN_WRAPPER_OPTS += -ffile-prefix-map=$(BASE_DIR)=buildroot
> > else
> > --
> > 2.29.2
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > buildroot mailing list
> > buildroot at busybox.net
> > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-12 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-11 19:48 [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH] toolchain/toolchain-wrapper: remove --build-id=none option John Keeping
2020-11-11 20:58 ` Yann E. MORIN
2020-11-11 21:00 ` Yann E. MORIN
2020-11-12 11:07 ` John Keeping [this message]
2020-11-12 20:03 ` John Keeping
2020-11-12 21:11 ` Yann E. MORIN
2020-11-12 20:58 ` Yann E. MORIN
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201112110717.634931e0.john@metanate.com \
--to=john@metanate.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox