Need Reviewer: binary_file_verification

Tue Jan 4 23:19:36 UTC 2011

The scan of all the binary files in Release.gmk should check all the  
exe and dll's in the jdk and jre images.
Do effectively, all the files should be checked twice. But if missed  
when it was built or copied in, the
Release.gmk check should catch it.

-kto

On Jan 4, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:

> 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
>> ****************************************
>