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

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrey Konovalov
<andrey.konovalov at 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 at 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 at 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
> >>