On 30.09.20 04:08, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
> Although the currently exported manifest probably has
> enough information, the tool debsecan and our wrapper
> cip-core-sec depend on the dpkg status format.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Sangorrin <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> ---
>  recipes-core/images/cip-core-image-security.bb | 8 ++++++++
>  recipes-core/images/cip-core-image.bb          | 8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image-security.bb b/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image-security.bb
> index 61ddc39..928774c 100644
> --- a/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image-security.bb
> +++ b/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image-security.bb
> @@ -34,3 +34,11 @@ IMAGE_PREINSTALL += " \
>  	uuid-runtime \
>  	sudo \
>  "
> +
> +# for cip-core-sec/debsecan
> +ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "export_dpkg_status"
> +export_dpkg_status() {
> +    sudo -E chroot --userspec=$(id -u):$(id -g) '${ROOTFSDIR}' \
> +        cat /var/lib/dpkg/status > \
> +        ${ROOTFS_MANIFEST_DEPLOY_DIR}/"${PF}".dpkg_status

This is just a copy-out, I don't see the chroot need here.

> +}
> diff --git a/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image.bb b/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image.bb
> index 2cecde3..0139819 100644
> --- a/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image.bb
> +++ b/recipes-core/images/cip-core-image.bb
> @@ -19,3 +19,11 @@ IMAGE_INSTALL += "customizations"
>  # for swupdate
>  SWU_DESCRIPTION ??= "swupdate"
>  include ${SWU_DESCRIPTION}.inc
> +
> +# for cip-core-sec/debsecan
> +ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "export_dpkg_status"
> +export_dpkg_status() {
> +    sudo -E chroot --userspec=$(id -u):$(id -g) '${ROOTFSDIR}' \
> +        cat /var/lib/dpkg/status > \
> +        ${ROOTFS_MANIFEST_DEPLOY_DIR}/"${PF}".dpkg_status
> +}
>

Please avoid code duplication. We have means like "require some.inc" in
bitbake.

I'm also wondering if this should go to isar upstream directly. debsecan
is a generic Debian tool, nothing CIP-specific per se.

Jan