All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
To: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk>,
	yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/2] package.bbclass: add prohibited-path qa test
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:47:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac750826-9931-85d1-35b4-106d774ee829@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1510600788-27455-1-git-send-email-martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk>

On 11/13/2017 09:19 PM, Martyn Welch wrote:
> Sometimes we wish to ensure that packages don't install files or
> directories somewhere that may prove detrimental to the operation of the
> system. For example, this may be the case if files are placed in a
> directory that is utilised as a mount point at run time, thus making them
> inaccessible once when the mount point is being utilised.
> 
> Implement the prohibited-path QA test, which enables such locations to be
> specified in a "PROHIBITED_PATH" variable. This implementation allows for
> exact matches and simple wildcards (paths ending with an asterisk. An
> error will be raised should a match be found, or in the case of a
> wildcard, for any files added below the specificed location(s).

I think this situation is an image configuration problem, not a package 
qa problem. If a package wants to install something in a location that 
is deemed inappropriate by the local config, there's a reason behind it, 
the fix may not be easy to develop, and will likely be useless or even 
unacceptable to other users of the recipe. It's better to reconfigure 
the mount points.

Can you perform this check using IMAGE_QA_COMMANDS please?

On a broader note, we've had an open issue to improve image qa testing 
for a long time, so maybe this could be a first step :)
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10636

Alex


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
To: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk>,
	yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] package.bbclass: add prohibited-path qa test
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:47:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac750826-9931-85d1-35b4-106d774ee829@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1510600788-27455-1-git-send-email-martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk>

On 11/13/2017 09:19 PM, Martyn Welch wrote:
> Sometimes we wish to ensure that packages don't install files or
> directories somewhere that may prove detrimental to the operation of the
> system. For example, this may be the case if files are placed in a
> directory that is utilised as a mount point at run time, thus making them
> inaccessible once when the mount point is being utilised.
> 
> Implement the prohibited-path QA test, which enables such locations to be
> specified in a "PROHIBITED_PATH" variable. This implementation allows for
> exact matches and simple wildcards (paths ending with an asterisk. An
> error will be raised should a match be found, or in the case of a
> wildcard, for any files added below the specificed location(s).

I think this situation is an image configuration problem, not a package 
qa problem. If a package wants to install something in a location that 
is deemed inappropriate by the local config, there's a reason behind it, 
the fix may not be easy to develop, and will likely be useless or even 
unacceptable to other users of the recipe. It's better to reconfigure 
the mount points.

Can you perform this check using IMAGE_QA_COMMANDS please?

On a broader note, we've had an open issue to improve image qa testing 
for a long time, so maybe this could be a first step :)
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10636

Alex


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-11-14 12:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-13 19:19 [PATCH v2 1/2] package.bbclass: add prohibited-path qa test Martyn Welch
2017-11-13 19:19 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ref-manual: Add documentation for prohibited-path QA test Martyn Welch
2017-11-13 19:39 ` ✗ patchtest: failure for "[v2] package.bbclass: add proh..." and 1 more Patchwork
2017-11-14 12:47 ` Alexander Kanavin [this message]
2017-11-14 12:47   ` [PATCH v2 1/2] package.bbclass: add prohibited-path qa test Alexander Kanavin
2017-11-14 12:54   ` [OE-core] " Alexander Kanavin
2017-11-14 12:54     ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-11-14 13:01 ` [OE-core] " Andreas Oberritter
2017-11-14 13:01   ` Andreas Oberritter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ac750826-9931-85d1-35b4-106d774ee829@linux.intel.com \
    --to=alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    --cc=yocto@yoctoproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.