[meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().

IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
---
 .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
--- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
+++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
@@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
 
 S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
 
-DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
+DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
 DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
 
 RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
 
 inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
 
+do_install_append() {
+        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
+}
+
 FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
 FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
 
+INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
+INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
+
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

Hi Kieran,

On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
> 
> On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> 
> Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> 
>   -
> https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> 
> If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.

I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
*might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.

Thanks,
Andrey

> /me sighs ...
> 
>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> 
> 
> This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> 
> 
> I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
> 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>>   
>>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>   
>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>>   
>>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>>   
>>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>>   
>> +do_install_append() {
>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> 
> Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> explicitly in the build.
> 
> It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> 
>> +}
>> +
>>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>>   
>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
>> +
>>
> 

Re: [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> >> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> >> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> >> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> >> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> >> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> >> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> >> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> > 
> > Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> > 
> >   -
> > https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> > 
> > If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> > then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
> 
> I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
> just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
> starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
> *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
> what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.

I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.

> > /me sighs ...
> > 
> >> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> >> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> >> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> >> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> >> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> >> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> >> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> >> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> >> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> >> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> > 
> > This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> > be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> > 
> > I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.

We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
should it re-run the signing script ?

> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> >> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> >>   
> >>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >>   
> >> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> >> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> >>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> >>   
> >>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> >>   
> >>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> >>   
> >> +do_install_append() {
> >> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> > 
> > Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> > the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> > explicitly in the build.
> > 
> > It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> > 
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> >>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> >>   
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> >> +

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [oe] [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:12 AM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > > On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > >> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> > >> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> > >> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> > >> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> > >> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> > >> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> > >> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> > >> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> > >
> > > Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> > >
> > >   -
> > > https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> > >
> > > If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> > > then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
> >
> > I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
> > just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
> > starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
> > *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
> > what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.
>
> I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
> then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
> issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
> too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.

As I said in prior email, It causes problems in cross compiling, so
perhaps it will be
better to have an option to not specify it or reset it during configure.

>
> > > /me sighs ...
> > >
> > >> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> > >> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> > >> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> > >> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> > >> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> > >> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> > >> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> > >> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> > >> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> > >> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> > >
> > > This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> > > be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> > >
> > > I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
>
> We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
> reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
> should it re-run the signing script ?

build systems take on creating debuggable packages and for that
usually, it builds the package and then
takes the control of stripping the binaries since it will save the
symbols and debug info into a separate package
unlike install -s or explicit strip commands the components build
system might do, which would discard this
content unconditionally. Perhaps it would be better for libcamera
buildsystem to take this into consideration
in order for distros to be able to package it easily. so we need a way
to resign it or not sign it at all since strip
step runs past install during build.

>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> > >> ---
> > >>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> > >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> > >> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> > >> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> > >> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> > >> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> > >>
> > >>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> > >>
> > >> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> > >> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> > >>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> > >>
> > >>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> > >>
> > >>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> > >>
> > >> +do_install_append() {
> > >> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> > >
> > > Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> > > the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> > > explicitly in the build.
> > >
> > > It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> > >
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> > >>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> > >>
> > >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> > >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> > >> +
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
> 

Re: [oe] [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Khem,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 08:37:27AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:12 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > > > On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > >> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> > > >> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> > > >> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> > > >> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> > > >> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> > > >> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> > > >> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> > > >> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> > > >
> > > > Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> > > >
> > > >   -
> > > > https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> > > >
> > > > If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> > > > then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
> > >
> > > I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
> > > just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
> > > starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
> > > *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
> > > what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.
> >
> > I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
> > then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
> > issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
> > too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.
> 
> As I said in prior email, It causes problems in cross compiling, so
> perhaps it will be
> better to have an option to not specify it or reset it during configure.

That's something we can consider, yes.

> > > > /me sighs ...
> > > >
> > > >> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> > > >> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> > > >> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> > > >> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> > > >> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> > > >> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> > > >> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> > > >> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> > > >> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> > > >> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> > > > be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> > > >
> > > > I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
> >
> > We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
> > reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
> > should it re-run the signing script ?
> 
> build systems take on creating debuggable packages and for that
> usually, it builds the package and then
> takes the control of stripping the binaries since it will save the
> symbols and debug info into a separate package
> unlike install -s or explicit strip commands the components build
> system might do, which would discard this
> content unconditionally. Perhaps it would be better for libcamera
> buildsystem to take this into consideration
> in order for distros to be able to package it easily. so we need a way
> to resign it or not sign it at all since strip
> step runs past install during build.

The src/ipa/ipa-sign-install.sh script can be used by the build system
to regenerate signatures. It takes the private key file as the first
parameter, followed by all the modules to be signed. We can improve the
script to facilitate its integration with distribution packaging.

> > > >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> > > >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> > > >> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> > > >> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> > > >> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> > > >> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> > > >>
> > > >>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> > > >>
> > > >> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> > > >> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> > > >>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> > > >>
> > > >>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> > > >>
> > > >>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> > > >>
> > > >> +do_install_append() {
> > > >> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> > > >
> > > > Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> > > > the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> > > > explicitly in the build.
> > > >
> > > > It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> > > >
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +
> > > >>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> > > >>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> > > >>
> > > >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> > > >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> > > >> +

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [oe] [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

Hi Laurent,

On 27.07.2020 14:11, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
>>>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
>>>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
>>>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
>>>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
>>>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
>>>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
>>>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
>>>
>>> Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
>>>
>>>    -
>>> https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
>>>
>>> If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
>>> then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
>>
>> I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
>> just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
>> starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
>> *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
>> what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.
> 
> I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
> then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
> issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
> too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.

It looks like it is not openembedded only issue:

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v4 0/2] package/libcamera: bump version to 96fab38
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:59:49 +0200
From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
CC: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org, Yann E . MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>

<snip>

With the following patch libcamera is forced to believe it is running
in a installed environment:

diff --git a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
index d55338f..4ff9dac 100644
--- a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
+++ b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
@@ -346,15 +346,18 @@ details::StringSplitter split(const std::string &str, const std::string &delim)
   */
  bool isLibcameraInstalled()
  {
+#if 0
  	/*
  	 * DT_RUNPATH (DT_RPATH when the linker uses old dtags) is removed on
  	 * install.
  	 */
  	for (const ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = _DYNAMIC; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; ++dyn) {
-		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH)
+		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH) {
+			printf("XXXXX - dyn->d_un.d_ptr: %s\n", (char*)dyn->d_un.d_ptr);
  			return false;
+		}
  	}
-
+#endif
  	return true;
  }

Maybe this is because of the buildroot local meson patch ([1]), leading
to an empty (but not absent) RPATH?

<snip>

[0:02:18.125804232] [252] DEBUG IPAManager ipa_manager.cpp:316 IPA module /usr/lib/libcamera/ipa_rpi.so signature is not valid

<snip>

This can be avoided with the following patch/hack (disable signature check):

diff --git a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
index 505cf61..3d64898 100644
--- a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
+++ b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
@@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ std::unique_ptr<IPAProxy> IPAManager::createIPA(PipelineHandler *pipe,

  bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
  {
+#if 1
+	return true;
+#else
  #if HAVE_IPA_PUBKEY
  	File file{ ipa->path() };
  	if (!file.open(File::ReadOnly))
@@ -320,6 +323,7 @@ bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
  #else
  	return false;
  #endif
+#endif
  }

  } /* namespace libcamera */


Maybe related to the buildroot finalize and/or sanitizing RPATH in target tree
step (and/or strip after install with BR2_ENABLE_DEBUG=y/BR2_STRIP_strip=y
enabled)?
-------- End of Forwarded Message --------

Thanks,
Andrey

>>> /me sighs ...
>>>
>>>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
>>>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
>>>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
>>>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
>>>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
>>>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
>>>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
>>>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
>>>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
>>>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
>>>
>>> This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
>>> be fixed in libcamera all the same.
>>>
>>> I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
> 
> We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
> reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
> should it re-run the signing script ?
> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>>>>    
>>>>    S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>    
>>>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
>>>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>>>>    DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>>>>    
>>>>    RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>>>>    
>>>>    inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>>>>    
>>>> +do_install_append() {
>>>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
>>>
>>> Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
>>> the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
>>> explicitly in the build.
>>>
>>> It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>>>>    FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>>>>    
>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
>>>> +
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [oe] [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Andrey,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:46:47PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 27.07.2020 14:11, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >> On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >>> On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >>>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> >>>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> >>>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> >>>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> >>>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> >>>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> >>>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> >>>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> >>>
> >>> Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> >>>
> >>>    -
> >>> https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> >>>
> >>> If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> >>> then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
> >>
> >> I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
> >> just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
> >> starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
> >> *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
> >> what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.
> > 
> > I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
> > then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
> > issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
> > too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.
> 
> It looks like it is not openembedded only issue:
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v4 0/2] package/libcamera: bump version to 96fab38
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:59:49 +0200
> From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
> To: buildroot@busybox.net
> CC: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org, Yann E . MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> With the following patch libcamera is forced to believe it is running
> in a installed environment:
> 
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
> index d55338f..4ff9dac 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
> +++ b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
> @@ -346,15 +346,18 @@ details::StringSplitter split(const std::string &str, const std::string &delim)
>    */
>   bool isLibcameraInstalled()
>   {
> +#if 0
>   	/*
>   	 * DT_RUNPATH (DT_RPATH when the linker uses old dtags) is removed on
>   	 * install.
>   	 */
>   	for (const ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = _DYNAMIC; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; ++dyn) {
> -		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH)
> +		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH) {
> +			printf("XXXXX - dyn->d_un.d_ptr: %s\n", (char*)dyn->d_un.d_ptr);
>   			return false;
> +		}
>   	}
> -
> +#endif
>   	return true;
>   }
> 
> Maybe this is because of the buildroot local meson patch ([1]), leading
> to an empty (but not absent) RPATH?

buildroot preserves empty RPATH when installing. Maybe we could adapt
isLibcameraInstalled() to return true only if RPATH is found *and* not
empty ?

For openembedded, why is RPATH stripping skipped ?

> <snip>
> 
> [0:02:18.125804232] [252] DEBUG IPAManager ipa_manager.cpp:316 IPA module /usr/lib/libcamera/ipa_rpi.so signature is not valid
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This can be avoided with the following patch/hack (disable signature check):
> 
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> index 505cf61..3d64898 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> +++ b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> @@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ std::unique_ptr<IPAProxy> IPAManager::createIPA(PipelineHandler *pipe,
> 
>   bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
>   {
> +#if 1
> +	return true;
> +#else
>   #if HAVE_IPA_PUBKEY
>   	File file{ ipa->path() };
>   	if (!file.open(File::ReadOnly))
> @@ -320,6 +323,7 @@ bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
>   #else
>   	return false;
>   #endif
> +#endif
>   }
> 
>   } /* namespace libcamera */
> 
> 
> Maybe related to the buildroot finalize and/or sanitizing RPATH in target tree
> step (and/or strip after install with BR2_ENABLE_DEBUG=y/BR2_STRIP_strip=y
> enabled)?

For this, let's first see how module re-signing works with
openemebedded, possibly improving the resigning script. If it's
successful, I think we can then use the same methods for buildroot and
other distributions. A packaging document to explain all this would be
useful.

> -------- End of Forwarded Message --------
> 
> >>> /me sighs ...
> >>>
> >>>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> >>>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> >>>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> >>>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> >>>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> >>>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> >>>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> >>>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> >>>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> >>>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> >>> be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> >>>
> >>> I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
> > 
> > We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
> > reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
> > should it re-run the signing script ?
> > 
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> >>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >>>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> >>>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >>>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >>>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> >>>>    
> >>>>    S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >>>>    
> >>>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> >>>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> >>>>    DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> >>>>    
> >>>>    RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> >>>>    
> >>>>    inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> >>>>    
> >>>> +do_install_append() {
> >>>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> >>>
> >>> Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> >>> the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> >>> explicitly in the build.
> >>>
> >>> It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> >>>
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>    FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> >>>>    FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> >>>>    
> >>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> >>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> >>>> +

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [oe] [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

Hi Laurent,

On 27.07.2020 19:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:46:47PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On 27.07.2020 14:11, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>>> On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>>>>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
>>>>>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
>>>>>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
>>>>>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
>>>>>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
>>>>>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
>>>>>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
>>>>>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
>>>>>
>>>>>     -
>>>>> https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
>>>>>
>>>>> If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
>>>>> then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
>>>> just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
>>>> starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
>>>> *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
>>>> what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.
>>>
>>> I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
>>> then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
>>> issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
>>> too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.
>>
>> It looks like it is not openembedded only issue:
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v4 0/2] package/libcamera: bump version to 96fab38
>> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:59:49 +0200
>> From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
>> To: buildroot@busybox.net
>> CC: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org, Yann E . MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> With the following patch libcamera is forced to believe it is running
>> in a installed environment:
>>
>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
>> index d55338f..4ff9dac 100644
>> --- a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
>> +++ b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
>> @@ -346,15 +346,18 @@ details::StringSplitter split(const std::string &str, const std::string &delim)
>>     */
>>    bool isLibcameraInstalled()
>>    {
>> +#if 0
>>    	/*
>>    	 * DT_RUNPATH (DT_RPATH when the linker uses old dtags) is removed on
>>    	 * install.
>>    	 */
>>    	for (const ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = _DYNAMIC; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; ++dyn) {
>> -		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH)
>> +		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH) {
>> +			printf("XXXXX - dyn->d_un.d_ptr: %s\n", (char*)dyn->d_un.d_ptr);
>>    			return false;
>> +		}
>>    	}
>> -
>> +#endif
>>    	return true;
>>    }
>>
>> Maybe this is because of the buildroot local meson patch ([1]), leading
>> to an empty (but not absent) RPATH?
> 
> buildroot preserves empty RPATH when installing. Maybe we could adapt
> isLibcameraInstalled() to return true only if RPATH is found *and* not
> empty ?
> 
> For openembedded, why is RPATH stripping skipped ?

Not sure if I can give a proper explanation, so I would better refer you to:

https://patches.openembedded.org/patch/156584/
https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/2567 (rpurdie's comments especially)

Maybe the fix done in meson 0.55 would let distributions to re-enable RPATH stripping:
   https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#added-ability-to-specify-targets-in-meson-compile
   https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/7103
   https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/7472
- but I don't know if/when this could happen. For me it looks like a lot of re-testing
at least (distros have a whole lot of packages which could be affected).

>> <snip>
>>
>> [0:02:18.125804232] [252] DEBUG IPAManager ipa_manager.cpp:316 IPA module /usr/lib/libcamera/ipa_rpi.so signature is not valid
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> This can be avoided with the following patch/hack (disable signature check):
>>
>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
>> index 505cf61..3d64898 100644
>> --- a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
>> +++ b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
>> @@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ std::unique_ptr<IPAProxy> IPAManager::createIPA(PipelineHandler *pipe,
>>
>>    bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
>>    {
>> +#if 1
>> +	return true;
>> +#else
>>    #if HAVE_IPA_PUBKEY
>>    	File file{ ipa->path() };
>>    	if (!file.open(File::ReadOnly))
>> @@ -320,6 +323,7 @@ bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
>>    #else
>>    	return false;
>>    #endif
>> +#endif
>>    }
>>
>>    } /* namespace libcamera */
>>
>>
>> Maybe related to the buildroot finalize and/or sanitizing RPATH in target tree
>> step (and/or strip after install with BR2_ENABLE_DEBUG=y/BR2_STRIP_strip=y
>> enabled)?
> 
> For this, let's first see how module re-signing works with
> openemebedded, possibly improving the resigning script. If it's
> successful, I think we can then use the same methods for buildroot and
> other distributions. A packaging document to explain all this would be
> useful.

Sounds good.

Thanks,
Andrey

>> -------- End of Forwarded Message --------
>>
>>>>> /me sighs ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
>>>>>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
>>>>>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
>>>>>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
>>>>>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
>>>>>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
>>>>>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
>>>>>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
>>>>>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
>>>>>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
>>>>> be fixed in libcamera all the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
>>>
>>> We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
>>> reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
>>> should it re-run the signing script ?
>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>>>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
>>>>>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>>>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>>>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>>>     
>>>>>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
>>>>>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>>>>>>     DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>>>>>>     
>>>>>> +do_install_append() {
>>>>>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
>>>>>
>>>>> Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
>>>>> the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
>>>>> explicitly in the build.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
>>>>>
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>     FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>>>>>>     FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>>>>>>     
>>>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>>>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
>>>>>> +
> 

Re: [oe] [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Andrey,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:17:04PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 27.07.2020 19:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:46:47PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >> On 27.07.2020 14:11, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:58:23PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >>>> On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >>>>> On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >>>>>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> >>>>>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> >>>>>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> >>>>>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> >>>>>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> >>>>>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> >>>>>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> >>>>>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     -
> >>>>> https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> >>>>> then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
> >>>> just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
> >>>> starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
> >>>> *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
> >>>> what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.
> >>>
> >>> I think that if the problem is caused by a meson patch in openembedded,
> >>> then it would make sense to fix it there. We can decide to address the
> >>> issue in libcamera itself if it's found to affect other distributions
> >>> too, or if meson's behaviour changes in an incompatible way.
> >>
> >> It looks like it is not openembedded only issue:
> >>
> >> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >> Subject: [libcamera-devel] [PATCH v4 0/2] package/libcamera: bump version to 96fab38
> >> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:59:49 +0200
> >> From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
> >> To: buildroot@busybox.net
> >> CC: libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org, Yann E . MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> With the following patch libcamera is forced to believe it is running
> >> in a installed environment:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
> >> index d55338f..4ff9dac 100644
> >> --- a/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
> >> +++ b/src/libcamera/utils.cpp
> >> @@ -346,15 +346,18 @@ details::StringSplitter split(const std::string &str, const std::string &delim)
> >>     */
> >>    bool isLibcameraInstalled()
> >>    {
> >> +#if 0
> >>    	/*
> >>    	 * DT_RUNPATH (DT_RPATH when the linker uses old dtags) is removed on
> >>    	 * install.
> >>    	 */
> >>    	for (const ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = _DYNAMIC; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; ++dyn) {
> >> -		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH)
> >> +		if (dyn->d_tag == DT_RUNPATH || dyn->d_tag == DT_RPATH) {
> >> +			printf("XXXXX - dyn->d_un.d_ptr: %s\n", (char*)dyn->d_un.d_ptr);
> >>    			return false;
> >> +		}
> >>    	}
> >> -
> >> +#endif
> >>    	return true;
> >>    }
> >>
> >> Maybe this is because of the buildroot local meson patch ([1]), leading
> >> to an empty (but not absent) RPATH?
> > 
> > buildroot preserves empty RPATH when installing. Maybe we could adapt
> > isLibcameraInstalled() to return true only if RPATH is found *and* not
> > empty ?
> > 
> > For openembedded, why is RPATH stripping skipped ?
> 
> Not sure if I can give a proper explanation, so I would better refer you to:
> 
> https://patches.openembedded.org/patch/156584/
> https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/2567 (rpurdie's comments especially)

Thank you for the pointers, it's pretty interesting.

> Maybe the fix done in meson 0.55 would let distributions to re-enable RPATH stripping:
>    https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#added-ability-to-specify-targets-in-meson-compile
>    https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/7103
>    https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/7472
> - but I don't know if/when this could happen. For me it looks like a lot of re-testing
> at least (distros have a whole lot of packages which could be affected).

Yes, it will likely take time, even if I think it's the right solution.
In the meantime, I think we'll have to handle this in the OE and
buildroot recipes, I don't really see what else we could do. It may be
possible to improve the implementation in libcamera by checking the
R(UN)PATH value (it's tricky though, glibc and musl handle this quite
differently, where glibc patches the _DYNAMIC entries with pointers to
the string table in memory, while musl doesn't AFAIR), but it would only
help if we can get the build system to strip the custom R(UN)PATH entry
that we add. If nothing is stripped, I think we're stuck.

> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> [0:02:18.125804232] [252] DEBUG IPAManager ipa_manager.cpp:316 IPA module /usr/lib/libcamera/ipa_rpi.so signature is not valid
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> This can be avoided with the following patch/hack (disable signature check):
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> >> index 505cf61..3d64898 100644
> >> --- a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> >> +++ b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> >> @@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ std::unique_ptr<IPAProxy> IPAManager::createIPA(PipelineHandler *pipe,
> >>
> >>    bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
> >>    {
> >> +#if 1
> >> +	return true;
> >> +#else
> >>    #if HAVE_IPA_PUBKEY
> >>    	File file{ ipa->path() };
> >>    	if (!file.open(File::ReadOnly))
> >> @@ -320,6 +323,7 @@ bool IPAManager::isSignatureValid(IPAModule *ipa) const
> >>    #else
> >>    	return false;
> >>    #endif
> >> +#endif
> >>    }
> >>
> >>    } /* namespace libcamera */
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe related to the buildroot finalize and/or sanitizing RPATH in target tree
> >> step (and/or strip after install with BR2_ENABLE_DEBUG=y/BR2_STRIP_strip=y
> >> enabled)?
> > 
> > For this, let's first see how module re-signing works with
> > openemebedded, possibly improving the resigning script. If it's
> > successful, I think we can then use the same methods for buildroot and
> > other distributions. A packaging document to explain all this would be
> > useful.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> >> -------- End of Forwarded Message --------
> >>
> >>>>> /me sighs ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> >>>>>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> >>>>>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> >>>>>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> >>>>>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> >>>>>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> >>>>>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> >>>>>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> >>>>>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> >>>>>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> >>>>> be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
> >>>
> >>> We re-sign the IPA modules at install time for this very specific
> >>> reason. If openembedded modifies the binaries after installing them,
> >>> should it re-run the signing script ?
> >>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>     .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> >>>>>>     1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >>>>>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >>>>>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >>>>>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>>     S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> >>>>>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> >>>>>>     DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>>     RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>>     inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>> +do_install_append() {
> >>>>>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> >>>>> the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> >>>>> explicitly in the build.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>>     FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> >>>>>>     FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> >>>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> >>>>>> +

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:58 AM Andrey Konovalov
<andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kieran,
>
> On 27.07.2020 12:42, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > Hi Andrey,
> >
> > On 27/07/2020 10:21, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> >> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> >> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> >> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> >> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> >> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> >> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> >> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> >
> > Uh oh, what's changed... (I'll have to go take a look).
> >
> >   -
> > https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-55-0.html#rpath-removal-now-more-careful
> >
> > If we're reliant upon meson behaviour which is no longer consistent,
> > then we are going to have to do something else in libcamera.
>
> I haven't tried meson 0.55 yet, but my impression was that 0.55 should work
> just as before for "usual" (as per libcamera's README) libcamera build. And
> starting from 0.55 the patch in openembedded-core to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal
> *might* be dropped - if all the packages would be able to set RUNPATH to
> what they need, and meson would detect that OK in all those cases.

runpath is problem more than solution when cross-compiling for a
system which has normal file hierarchy standard
since it gets absolute values of build time paths embedded into
binaries, which is unwanted, so its stripped
most of the time on OE.

>
> Thanks,
> Andrey
>
> > /me sighs ...
> >
> >> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> >> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> >> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> >> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> >> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> >> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> >> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> >> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> >> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> >> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> >
> >
> > This sounds like an effective solution for openembedded, but it needs to
> > be fixed in libcamera all the same.
> >
> >
> > I'll try to follow up with the meson guys to see what we can do,.
> >
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> >> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> >>
> >>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >>
> >> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> >> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> >>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> >>
> >>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> >>
> >>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> >>
> >> +do_install_append() {
> >> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> >
> > Aha, I didn't know about chrpath, that looks helpful. Perhaps part of
> > the solution will be handling our own strip/install actions to do this
> > explicitly in the build.
> >
> > It will be a pain to have to pull in another external dependency though...
> >
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> >>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> >>
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> >> +
> >>
> >

Re: [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Andrey Konovalov
<andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
>
> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> ---
>  .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>
>  S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>
> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>  DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>
>  RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>
>  inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>
> +do_install_append() {
> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> +}
> +
>  FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>  FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>
> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"

I think this is sub-optimal, it means we can not have stripped
binaries and it will increase the size unnecessarily

> +
> --
> 2.17.1
>

Re: [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

Hi Khem,

On 27.07.2020 18:28, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Andrey Konovalov
> <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
>>
>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>>
>>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>
>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>>
>>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>>
>>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>>
>> +do_install_append() {
>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
>> +}
>> +
>>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>>
>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> 
> I think this is sub-optimal, it means we can not have stripped
> binaries and it will increase the size unnecessarily

Indeed.

But the alternative is to recalculate the signature on the stripped binary in do_install_append(),
and the drawback of this is moving part of the module signature implementation into the recipe.

Or the libcamera implementation is to be changed to handle stripped binaries.

Thanks,
Andrey

>> +
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>

Re: [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrey Konovalov
<andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Khem,
>
> On 27.07.2020 18:28, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Andrey Konovalov
> > <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> >> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> >> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> >> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> >> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> >> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> >> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> >> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> >>
> >> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> >> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> >> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> >> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> >> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> >> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> >> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> >> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> >> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> >> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> >> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> >>
> >>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >>
> >> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> >> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> >>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> >>
> >>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> >>
> >>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> >>
> >> +do_install_append() {
> >> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> >>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> >>
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> >
> > I think this is sub-optimal, it means we can not have stripped
> > binaries and it will increase the size unnecessarily
>
> Indeed.
>
> But the alternative is to recalculate the signature on the stripped binary in do_install_append(),
> and the drawback of this is moving part of the module signature implementation into the recipe.
>
> Or the libcamera implementation is to be changed to handle stripped binaries.
>

either of these solutions will be better perhaps.

> Thanks,
> Andrey
>
> >> +
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>

Re: [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

Hi Khem,

On 27.07.2020 18:38, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrey Konovalov
> <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Khem,
>>
>> On 27.07.2020 18:28, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Andrey Konovalov
>>> <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
>>>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
>>>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
>>>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
>>>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
>>>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
>>>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
>>>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
>>>>
>>>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
>>>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
>>>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
>>>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
>>>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
>>>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
>>>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
>>>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
>>>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
>>>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>>>>
>>>>    S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>
>>>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
>>>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>>>>    DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>>>>
>>>>    RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>>>>
>>>>    inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>>>>
>>>> +do_install_append() {
>>>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>>>>    FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>>>>
>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
>>>
>>> I think this is sub-optimal, it means we can not have stripped
>>> binaries and it will increase the size unnecessarily
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> But the alternative is to recalculate the signature on the stripped binary in do_install_append(),
>> and the drawback of this is moving part of the module signature implementation into the recipe.
>>
>> Or the libcamera implementation is to be changed to handle stripped binaries.
>>
> 
> either of these solutions will be better perhaps.

Sound good. I'll try recalculating the signature and post v2 of the patch.

Thanks,
Andrey

Re: [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Andrey,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:36:28PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 27.07.2020 18:28, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >>
> >> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
> >> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
> >> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
> >> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
> >> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
> >> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
> >> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
> >> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
> >>
> >> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
> >> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
> >> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
> >> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
> >> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
> >> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
> >> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
> >> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
> >> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
> >> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>   .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
> >> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
> >> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
> >>
> >>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >>
> >> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
> >> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
> >>   DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
> >>
> >>   RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
> >>
> >>   inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
> >>
> >> +do_install_append() {
> >> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>   FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
> >>   FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
> >>
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
> >> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
> > 
> > I think this is sub-optimal, it means we can not have stripped
> > binaries and it will increase the size unnecessarily
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> But the alternative is to recalculate the signature on the stripped binary in do_install_append(),
> and the drawback of this is moving part of the module signature implementation into the recipe.
> 
> Or the libcamera implementation is to be changed to handle stripped binaries.

We could calculate the signature on selected sections only, but that
would make the implementation much more complex. Could the
src/ipa/ipa-sign-install.sh resign script could be used by the recipe ?
We can also improve the script to facilitate its usage.

> >> +

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [libcamera-devel] [meta-multimedia][PATCH] libcamera: fix packaging and installation

[Andrey Konovalov]

Hi Laurent,

On 27.07.2020 18:45, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:36:28PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On 27.07.2020 18:28, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> libcamera checks if RPATH or RUNPATH dynamic tag is present in
>>>> libcamera.so. If it does, it assumes that libcamera binaries are
>>>> run directly from the build directory without installing them, and
>>>> tries to use resorces like IPA modules from the build directory.
>>>> Mainline meson strips RPATH/RUNPATH out at install time (for
>>>> meson versions up to 0.54; the things are somewhat changed in 0.55).
>>>> But openembedded-core patches meson to disable RPATH/RUNPATH removal.
>>>> That's why we need to remove this tag manually in do_install_append().
>>>>
>>>> IPA module is signed (with openssl dgst) after it is built. But
>>>> during packaging the OE build system 1) splits out debugging info,
>>>> and 2) strips the binaries. So the IPA module *.so file installed
>>>> isn't the one which the signature was calculated against. Then
>>>> the signature check fails, and libcamera tries to run the IPA
>>>> module isolated (in a sandbox), which doesn't work if the IPA
>>>> module wasn't designed to run isolated. The easiest way to fix that
>>>> is to disable splitting out debug information and stripping the binaries
>>>> during packaging with INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT and
>>>> INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb            | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> index 00a5c480d..573366f08 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/libcamera/libcamera.bb
>>>> @@ -18,13 +18,20 @@ PV = "202006+git${SRCPV}"
>>>>
>>>>    S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>
>>>> -DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost"
>>>> +DEPENDS = "python3-pyyaml-native udev gnutls boost chrpath-native"
>>>>    DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'qt', 'qtbase qtbase-native', '', d)}"
>>>>
>>>>    RDEPENDS_${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wayland qt', 'qtwayland', '', d)}"
>>>>
>>>>    inherit meson pkgconfig python3native
>>>>
>>>> +do_install_append() {
>>>> +        chrpath -d ${D}${libdir}/libcamera.so
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/pkgconfig"
>>>>    FILES_${PN} += " ${libdir}/libcamera.so"
>>>>
>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>>>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
>>>
>>> I think this is sub-optimal, it means we can not have stripped
>>> binaries and it will increase the size unnecessarily
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> But the alternative is to recalculate the signature on the stripped binary in do_install_append(),
>> and the drawback of this is moving part of the module signature implementation into the recipe.
>>
>> Or the libcamera implementation is to be changed to handle stripped binaries.
> 
> We could calculate the signature on selected sections only, but that
> would make the implementation much more complex. Could the
> src/ipa/ipa-sign-install.sh resign script could be used by the recipe ?

Yes, it could.
I'll try this.

> We can also improve the script to facilitate its usage.

OK.

Thanks,
Andrey

>>>> +
>