GNU bug report logs -
#56766
[PATCH] gnu: exiv2: Fix test failure on ppc64-le
Previous Next
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 56766 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 56766 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Mon, 25 Jul 2022 19:49:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Marcel van der Boom <marcel <at> van-der-boom.nl>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Mon, 25 Jul 2022 19:49:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
ppc64 and arm do not raise exception and thus output and exit code for test is different.
* gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch: Modify test for ppc64
* gnu/packages/image.scm (exiv2): add `patches` field for source if target is ppc64
See:
https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/365 and
https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/933
upstream.
---
gnu/packages/image.scm | 5 ++++-
gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
diff --git a/gnu/packages/image.scm b/gnu/packages/image.scm
index d52d57b3b1..dc4bf76790 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/image.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/image.scm
@@ -1342,7 +1342,10 @@ (define-public exiv2
(uri (string-append "https://www.exiv2.org/builds/exiv2-" version
"-Source.tar.gz"))
(sha256
- (base32 "1qm6bvj28l42km009nc60gffn1qhngc0m2wjlhf90si3mcc8d99m"))))
+ (base32 "1qm6bvj28l42km009nc60gffn1qhngc0m2wjlhf90si3mcc8d99m"))
+ (patches
+ (if (target-ppc64le?)
+ (list (search-patch "exiv2-ppc64.patch"))))))
(build-system cmake-build-system)
(arguments
'(#:test-target "tests"
diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a74a7ac1b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+--- /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
++++ /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
+@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
+ Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 0 is outside of the data area; ignored.
+ Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 7 is outside of the data area; ignored.
+ Error: Offset of directory Thumbnail, entry 0x0201 is out of bounds: Offset = 0x00000000; truncating the entry
+-$uncaught_exception $addition_overflow_message
+ """
+ ]
+- retval = [1]
++ retval = [0]
base-commit: 212ca81895b2baa819ea11a308ad21880b84a546
--
2.37.1
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:02:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 25-07-2022 21:47, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
> + (patches
> + (if (target-ppc64le?)
> + (list (search-patch "exiv2-ppc64.patch"))))))
The second branch of the 'if' is missing -- as-is, *unspecified* is used
when (not (target-ppc64le?)), which won't work.
The 'patches' field is delayed, not thunked, so only the first
system+target it sees will take effect. This will break things if for
whatever reason you compute the derivation of the package for multiple
systems in the same process.
To solve things, I recommend:
1. Inform upstream that the test (or the code it tests) is broken on
ppc64le, such that a better test can be devised and everyone (not
only Guix) benefits,
2. and for now, modify the test file in a phase (using 'substitute*')
-- phases are thunked instead of delayed or direct, so the issue
mentioned above doesn't hold.
Greetings,
Maxime.
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]
[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:03:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 25-07-2022 21:47, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..a74a7ac1b7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +--- /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
> ++++ /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
> +@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
> + Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 0 is outside of the data area; ignored.
> + Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 7 is outside of the data area; ignored.
> + Error: Offset of directory Thumbnail, entry 0x0201 is out of bounds: Offset = 0x00000000; truncating the entry
IIUC, "guix lint" has a linter that verifies that the patch contains a
link to the upstream issue. It is also required to add an entry to
gnu/local.mk, such that it is added to release tarballs.
Greetings,
Maxime.
[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]
[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:46:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Thanks for the review, some notes/questions inline below.
[Maxime Devos]:
> The 'patches' field is delayed, not thunked, so only the first
> system+target it sees will take effect. This will break things
> if for whatever reason you compute the derivation of the package
> for multiple systems in the same process.
Where can I read up on 'delayed' vs 'thunked' to understand that
concept? I have no idea what it is at the moment and the manual
does not mention this.
> To solve things, I recommend:
> 1. Inform upstream that the test (or the code it tests) is
> broken on
> ppc64le, such that a better test can be devised and everyone
> (not
> only Guix) benefits,
This has been done. Their reply, in short: ppc64 is not on their
supported platforms list and they delegate the fix to others.
marcel
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:56:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 26-07-2022 20:38, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
>> The 'patches' field is delayed, not thunked, so only the first
>> system+target it sees will take effect. This will break things if for
>> whatever reason you compute the derivation of the package for
>> multiple systems in the same process.
>
> Where can I read up on 'delayed' vs 'thunked' to understand that
> concept? I have no idea what it is at the moment and the manual does
> not mention this.
AFAICT, it is not documented, though you could read the code at (guix
records). Basically:
* thunked = field value is wrapped in a (lambda () the-value).
This allows for target-specific inputs, as (inputs (list (if
It's-this-architecture these those))) is internally translated to
(inputs (lambda () (if [...] [...] [...]))).
That way, the inputs are not decided when the package is being
defined, but when it is compiled to a particular architecture on a
particular architecture (or more precisely, a little before building, in
what is called 'lowering', which is a bit of a low-level concept and
hence probably not well-known).
* delayed = field value is wrapped in a (delay the-value).
For documentation on 'delay', see the manual. This is useful for
avoiding computation until it's really needed, but unlike 'lambda', it
will only be computed once, so only the first value of the-value is
taken in account. As such, this won't work well when target-specific
things are required.
Greetings,
Maxime.
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]
[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:12:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
>> 1. Inform upstream that the test (or the code it tests) is broken on
>> ppc64le, such that a better test can be devised and everyone (not
>> only Guix) benefits,
>
> This has been done. Their reply, in short: ppc64 is not on their
> supported platforms list and they delegate the fix to others.
OK, in that case ...
On 25-07-2022 21:47, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
> +--- /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
> ++++ /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
> +@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
> + Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 0 is outside of the data area; ignored.
> + Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 7 is outside of the data area; ignored.
> + Error: Offset of directory Thumbnail, entry 0x0201 is out of bounds: Offset = 0x00000000; truncating the entry
> +-$uncaught_exception $addition_overflow_message
> + """
> + ]
> +- retval = [1]
> ++ retval = [0]
... this is your proposed fix for powerpc64le, but how do we know
whether it is correct? Is this just rewriting the test until it passes,
hiding the underlying overflow bug which even had an CVE so probably
pretty important to not hide it and actually fix it, or do we know for a
fact that on ppc64le, a retval = [0] is correct?
Maybe this is answered by:
> ppc64 and arm do not raise exception and thus output and exit code for test is different.
but I don't know if that's working around symptoms or addressing the
cause, e.g.
https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/933#issuecomment-863333032 noticed
something on offsets -- summarised, this is not a sufficiently
convincing explanation for me.
Also, somehow this version of the package builds on Debian sid, so maybe
Debian knows more, though I'm not finding anything relevant in the
Debian package myself.
Greetings,
Maxime.
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]
[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:08:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
[Maxime Devos]
> Also, somehow this version of the package builds on Debian sid,
> so maybe Debian knows more, though I'm not finding anything
> relevant in the Debian package myself.
true, and I quickly ran a debian:sid container to see what they
did, but they chose the same solution. That is, the exiv2 binary
from their package returns the error as well (without the
exception raising). So, I guess they dont run the test suite then
as there's no change in their packaging.
It gave me enough confidence though to use it locally and try to
package it up in guix the same way. But I agree it's rather
unsatisfactory.
marcel
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Wed, 27 Jul 2022 07:44:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
* gnu/packages/image.scm (exiv3): use substitution instead of patch
---
gnu/packages/image.scm | 18 ++++++++++++------
gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch | 11 -----------
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
diff --git a/gnu/packages/image.scm b/gnu/packages/image.scm
index dc4bf76790..9febb883b4 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/image.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/image.scm
@@ -1342,13 +1342,10 @@ (define-public exiv2
(uri (string-append "https://www.exiv2.org/builds/exiv2-" version
"-Source.tar.gz"))
(sha256
- (base32 "1qm6bvj28l42km009nc60gffn1qhngc0m2wjlhf90si3mcc8d99m"))
- (patches
- (if (target-ppc64le?)
- (list (search-patch "exiv2-ppc64.patch"))))))
+ (base32 "1qm6bvj28l42km009nc60gffn1qhngc0m2wjlhf90si3mcc8d99m"))))
(build-system cmake-build-system)
(arguments
- '(#:test-target "tests"
+ `(#:test-target "tests"
#:configure-flags (list "-DEXIV2_BUILD_UNIT_TESTS=ON"
;; darktable needs BMFF to support
;; CR3 files.
@@ -1359,7 +1356,16 @@ (define-public exiv2
(lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
(let* ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out"))
(lib (string-append out "/lib")))
- (for-each delete-file (find-files lib "\\.a$"))))))))
+ (for-each delete-file (find-files lib "\\.a$")))))
+ (add-after 'unpack 'adjust-ppc6-tests
+ (lambda _
+ ,@(if (target-ppc64le?)
+ ;; Adjust test on ppc64
+ ;; See: https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/933
+ '((substitute* "tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py"
+ (("\\$uncaught_exception \\$addition_overflow_message\n") "")
+ (("retval = \\[1\\]") "retval = [0]")))
+ '()))))))
(propagated-inputs
(list expat zlib))
(native-inputs
diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index a74a7ac1b7..0000000000
--- a/gnu/packages/patches/exiv2-ppc64.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
---- /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
-+++ /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
-@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
- Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 0 is outside of the data area; ignored.
- Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 7 is outside of the data area; ignored.
- Error: Offset of directory Thumbnail, entry 0x0201 is out of bounds: Offset = 0x00000000; truncating the entry
--$uncaught_exception $addition_overflow_message
- """
- ]
-- retval = [1]
-+ retval = [0]
base-commit: 212ca81895b2baa819ea11a308ad21880b84a546
prerequisite-patch-id: a7093ef8ccbab6d6dd7474a08f75970bcf3b9d4b
--
2.37.1
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56766
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:33:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #29 received at 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Anything else needed for this?
Reply sent
to
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:12:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Marcel van der Boom <marcel <at> van-der-boom.nl>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:12:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #34 received at 56766-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Marcel,
I squashed the two patches into one, tweaked it to make the new build
phase conditional as a whole, added it for aarch64-linux as well, added
comments taken from your commit log, and tweaked the commit log.
Thank you, and thanks Maxime for reviewing!
Ludo’.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:24:09 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 14 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.