[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/3] vboot-utils fixes

[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/3] vboot-utils fixes

[Alex Suykov]

vboot-utils depend on relatively recent host kernel headers,
and fail to build on some of the autobuilders.

MTD_CHAR_MAJOR definition appears in linux-3.13, and ssize_t related
failures probably happen with glibc from the same timeframe.

Sadly I cannot check it properly, I can only tell it does not break
builds on newer systems. If possible, please try them on some older
systems before applying.

If everything works well, I'd try to send 0002 upstream, but probably not 0001.
It's an ugly fix and I don't think upstream cares much about older kernels.

  vboot-utils: MTD_CHAR_MAJOR definition
  vboot-utils: ssize_t needs unistd.h
  vboot-utils: remove hash file

 package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch        | 14 ++++++++++++++
 package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash          |  2 --
 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch
 create mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch
 delete mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash

-- 
2.6.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] vboot-utils: MTD_CHAR_MAJOR definition

[Alex Suykov]

Fixes
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/a6360fd21314899321071c34fcb4892c5eed9bcc/
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/0af3aa4a429c45d3a2609913ec1040f32378f3c8/
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/cc4940fd6f51b31d71014f5aedee5223180eb36e/

Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
---
 package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch

diff --git a/package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch b/package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9db90b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+This definition missing from <linux/major.h> for kernels <= 3.13.
+
+Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
+
+--- a/cgpt/cgpt_wrapper.c
++++ b/cgpt/cgpt_wrapper.c
+@@ -25,6 +25,10 @@
+ #include "cgpt_nor.h"
+ #include "cryptolib.h"
+ 
++#ifndef MTD_CHAR_MAJOR
++#define MTD_CHAR_MAJOR 90
++#endif
++
+ // Check if cmdline |argv| has "-D". "-D" signifies that GPT structs are stored
+ // off device, and hence we should not wrap around cgpt.
+ static bool has_dash_D(int argc, const char *const argv[]) {
-- 
2.6.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] vboot-utils: MTD_CHAR_MAJOR definition

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Alex Suykov,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:05:30 +0200, Alex Suykov wrote:
> Fixes
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/a6360fd21314899321071c34fcb4892c5eed9bcc/
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/0af3aa4a429c45d3a2609913ec1040f32378f3c8/
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/cc4940fd6f51b31d71014f5aedee5223180eb36e/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/0001-mtd-char-major.patch

Applied, thanks. It would have been nicer to have a Git formatted
patch, though.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but if you could submit this patch
to the upstream ChromiumOS project, it would be good.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/3] vboot-utils: ssize_t needs unistd.h

[Alex Suykov]

Fixes
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/95c8708411fbb116f313a0fdeccacf92cf9e3d8d/
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/cf4aa60f9fc9c48ff13d3233994b77b7c0950afe/
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/6f7dcafde693f06dfc88c922c5f8dd70ae2e30b5/
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/a2e95784d32c8842f6947801fd0d8c48f68b84e2/
http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/f69ae4c9eee27df43389ae76048fb4ddd5a3eca6/

Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
---
 package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch

diff --git a/package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch b/package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f1df45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+The code uses ssize_t which is usually defined in <unistd.h>
+
+Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
+
+--- a/host/lib/fmap.c
++++ a/host/lib/fmap.c
+@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
+ 
+ #include <stdio.h>
+ #include <string.h>
++#include <unistd.h>
+ 
+ #include "fmap.h"
+ 
-- 
2.6.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/3] vboot-utils: ssize_t needs unistd.h

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Alex Suykov,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:05:41 +0200, Alex Suykov wrote:
> Fixes
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/95c8708411fbb116f313a0fdeccacf92cf9e3d8d/
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/cf4aa60f9fc9c48ff13d3233994b77b7c0950afe/
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/6f7dcafde693f06dfc88c922c5f8dd70ae2e30b5/
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/a2e95784d32c8842f6947801fd0d8c48f68b84e2/
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/f69ae4c9eee27df43389ae76048fb4ddd5a3eca6/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/0002-ssize-t.patch

Also applied, with same comments: a Git formatted patch would have been
better, and if you can please submit upstream.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Alex Suykov]

The package uses git to download the sources.

Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
---
 package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash

diff --git a/package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash b/package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash
deleted file mode 100644
index e161423..0000000
--- a/package/vboot-utils/vboot-utils.hash
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
-# Git shapshot
-none	xxx	bbdd62f9b030db7ad8eef789aaf58a7ff9a25656.tar.gz
-- 
2.6.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Alex Suykov,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:06:05 +0200, Alex Suykov wrote:
> The package uses git to download the sources.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>

I think it is good to have hash files in this case, even if they simply
indicate "there's no hash". This way, we will be able in the future to
make hash files mandatory.

I *think* this was part of the conclusion we had at the latest
Buildroot Developers Meeting, even if the write up at
http://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2015 doesn't make this
completely clear.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 30-12-15 16:00, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Alex Suykov,
> 
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:06:05 +0200, Alex Suykov wrote:
>> The package uses git to download the sources.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Suykov <alex.suykov@gmail.com>
> 
> I think it is good to have hash files in this case, even if they simply
> indicate "there's no hash". This way, we will be able in the future to
> make hash files mandatory.
> 
> I *think* this was part of the conclusion we had at the latest
> Buildroot Developers Meeting, even if the write up at
> http://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2015 doesn't make this
> completely clear.

 I think we didn't get to a clear conclusion, except about the github hashes.

 Regards,
 Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Arnout,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:41:13 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

> > I *think* this was part of the conclusion we had at the latest
> > Buildroot Developers Meeting, even if the write up at
> > http://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2015 doesn't make this
> > completely clear.
> 
>  I think we didn't get to a clear conclusion, except about the github hashes.

OK, so what do we do ?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 30-12-15 22:53, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Arnout,
> 
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:41:13 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
>>> I *think* this was part of the conclusion we had at the latest
>>> Buildroot Developers Meeting, even if the write up at
>>> http://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2015 doesn't make this
>>> completely clear.
>>
>>  I think we didn't get to a clear conclusion, except about the github hashes.
> 
> OK, so what do we do ?

 IIRC the main reason why we didn't fully go for the "add hash files for all
packages" approach was that we would need to add an empty hash file for about
300 packages. But then we discovered that github could have hash files, but we
weren't entirely sure yet if that was really true.

 So I think now we can safely conclude that a hash file should be added for all
packages, even if it just contains 'none' hashes. It is definitely an advantage
to be able to distinguish packages that should still get a hash from packages of
which we already decided that the hash should be 'none'.

 Regards,
 Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Arnout,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:10:49 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>  IIRC the main reason why we didn't fully go for the "add hash files for all
> packages" approach was that we would need to add an empty hash file for about
> 300 packages. But then we discovered that github could have hash files, but we
> weren't entirely sure yet if that was really true.
> 
>  So I think now we can safely conclude that a hash file should be added for all
> packages, even if it just contains 'none' hashes. It is definitely an advantage
> to be able to distinguish packages that should still get a hash from packages of

Agreed.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Alex Suykov]

Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:53:23PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

> >  So I think now we can safely conclude that a hash file should be added for all
> > packages, even if it just contains 'none' hashes. It is definitely an advantage
> > to be able to distinguish packages that should still get a hash from packages of
> 
> Agreed.

Ok, got it.

Does it make sense to update the file name in .hash, or is it ok to leave it as is
since it's not used anyway?  It's (version).tar.gz now but the git checkout gets saved
as vboot-utils-(version).tar.gz.

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Yann E. MORIN]

Alex, All,

On 2016-01-01 16:52 +0200, Alex Suykov spake thusly:
> Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:53:23PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 
> > >  So I think now we can safely conclude that a hash file should be added for all
> > > packages, even if it just contains 'none' hashes. It is definitely an advantage
> > > to be able to distinguish packages that should still get a hash from packages of
> > 
> > Agreed.
> 
> Ok, got it.
> 
> Does it make sense to update the file name in .hash, or is it ok to leave it as is
> since it's not used anyway?  It's (version).tar.gz now but the git checkout gets saved
> as vboot-utils-(version).tar.gz.

Yes, you should update the file name, so that it matches the name the
archive is saved as. Thanks for spotting the problem! :-)

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] vboot-utils: remove hash file

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> writes:

Hi,

 >  So I think now we can safely conclude that a hash file should be
 > added for all packages, even if it just contains 'none' hashes. It is
 > definitely an advantage to be able to distinguish packages that
 > should still get a hash from packages of which we already decided
 > that the hash should be 'none'.

Yes, makes sense to me.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/3] vboot-utils fixes

[Mike Frysinger]

On 30 Dec 2015 16:05, Alex Suykov wrote:
> vboot-utils depend on relatively recent host kernel headers,
> and fail to build on some of the autobuilders.
> 
> MTD_CHAR_MAJOR definition appears in linux-3.13, and ssize_t related
> failures probably happen with glibc from the same timeframe.
> 
> Sadly I cannot check it properly, I can only tell it does not break
> builds on newer systems. If possible, please try them on some older
> systems before applying.
> 
> If everything works well, I'd try to send 0002 upstream, but probably not 0001.
> It's an ugly fix and I don't think upstream cares much about older kernels.

please send all of them to us via gerrit
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20160102/80135f9b/attachment.asc>