Need Reviewer: binary_file_verification

Tue Jan 4 22:14:01 UTC 2011

Looks like a good addition to me. Is there a way to ensure that binary file verification is exhaustively applied? ie. that every DLL or .so in a distribution has been checked?

Mike

On Jan 4 2011, at 12:00 , build-dev-request at openjdk.java.net wrote:

> Send build-dev mailing list submissions to
> 	build-dev at openjdk.java.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/build-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	build-dev-request at openjdk.java.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	build-dev-owner at openjdk.java.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of build-dev digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Fwd: Re: hotspot build problems (Per Bothner)
>   2. Need Reviewer: binary_file_verification (Kelly O'Hair)
>   3. Re: A More FHS-Compliant JDK Install (Andrew Haley)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:42:41 -0800
> From: Per Bothner <per.bothner at oracle.com>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: hotspot build problems
> To: HotSpot Open Source Developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Cc: build-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Message-ID: <4D225EF1.9000703 at oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> There were some recent changes to make/linux/makefiles/launcher.make,
> so my patch no longer applies.  Here is an updated patch.
> 
> I've verified that the patch is still needed (on Fedora 14 with
> SELinux enabled), and that it is "complete", in the sense that
> top-level make clean && make completes successfully.
> -- 
> 	--Per Bothner
> per.bothner at oracle.com   per at bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
> Name: chcon-launcher2.patch
> Url: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/attachments/20110103/0fff6ade/attachment-0001.ksh 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:01:15 -0800
> From: "Kelly O'Hair" <kelly.ohair at oracle.com>
> Subject: Need Reviewer: binary_file_verification
> To: build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Message-ID: <B5D5502C-30A1-4BAF-807E-F8E7215BE995 at oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Need reviewer: Misc fixes related to binary file checks
> 
> This started out as fixing a rebase bug but we also needed to verify  
> that our libraries were
> built properly, so the binary_file_verification define was created to  
> do this.
> The checks are not nailed down yet, but I need to get the calls to the  
> binary_file_verification
> define in place first.
> 
> Initially the plan was to do this check when the j2sdk-image was  
> created, but it seemed to make
> sense to verify the binaries where they are created and as they get  
> imported in so we can catch
> problem binaries as soon as possible.
> 
> 6413588: Add 'ldd -r' and 'dump -Lv' checks to all .so files delivered  
> in the JDK
> 6975326: Problem in install/make/rebase/Makefile, grep on empty pattern
> 7000995: Add check in makefiles to verify that msvcp100.dll is NOT used
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk7/jdk7-build-binary_file_verification/webrev/
> 
> On Windows we currently want to make sure the DLL can have a Dynamic  
> base, and that it
> is NX compatible (DEP).
> On Solaris and Linux, there is mostly just runs of ldd, nm, and dump/ 
> readobj, the specific
> things we want to check for may take a little more time to nail down.
> This binary_file_verification also provides some details in the build  
> log with regards
> to the library dependencies, which may be of use someday in tracking  
> down dependency issues.
> 
> -kto
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/attachments/20110103/fc7f8b1c/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:48:40 +0000
> From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: A More FHS-Compliant JDK Install
> To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Message-ID: <4D230918.4020907 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 01/03/2011 03:09 AM, Lussier, Denis wrote:
>> I too like the idea that the version of OpenJDK that comes pre-built with
>> your Linux distro is pre-installed and just works.  But... I wonder how/if
>> the Linux Distro's will configure simultaneously with JDK6&  JDK7 when they
>> are both mainstream.
> 
> Hopefully, the usual Java backwards compatibility will be maintained,
> so mostly it won't matter.  However, the packages may be installed
> side-by-side, with a symlink for the global default.  Like this example
> from Fedora 13:
> 
> /usr/bin/java -->
> /etc/alternatives/java -->
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/bin/java
> 
> I can't yet comment on whether distros will choose to allow multiple
> JDKs, though: just that there is no strong technical reason that
> forbids it.
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
> End of build-dev Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4
> ****************************************