Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
guide/presentations/ccs-report-examples/ccs-examples.md
Bradley M. Kuhn cbc2c4f082 Add introduction slide.
2018-09-26 09:30:21 -07:00

319 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

% Examples of CCS Reports
% Bradley M. Kuhn
% Tuesday 9 May 2017
# CCS "Round" Reports
+ Evaluate each CCS candidate.
+ Someone "skilled in the art" attempts to build.
+ Detailed notes are sent, asking for new CCS candidate "round".
+ Some anonyomized real world examples.
# No Build Instructions
<hr/>
The primary issues we found were a dearth of build instructions as well
as a complete lack of installation instructions. There was no
information that mentioned how one might build each package so we had to
guess about which Makefile and/or build script to run for each package.
And in many cases it was not possible or straight-forward to build - this
must be resolved in the next source candidate.
# Making General Recommendations
<hr/>
We generally recommend that the source release be a single file (ie. one
tarball containing all packages required for the build) that includes a
README or similar in the main directory explaining exactly how to build
and install all of the packages. See section 21.2 of
http://compliance.guide/pristine-example for an excellent example.
# Suspicious, But Not Captious.
<hr/>
Also, we noticed that some packages mentioned in the "OPEN SOURCE
SOFTWARE NOTICE" included with the device (and also downloaded as part of
the source release; see
Open_Source_Software_Notice_and_Privacy_Policy.pdf ) could not be found
in the source release. For example, we found "Software: Samba 3.0.XX" in
the notice, but could not find any trace of Samba in the source release.
Please ensure that all the software included in the notice is included in
the source release as well.
# Nesting Doll Packages
<hr/>
Once extracted, the 3 .rar files above produce the following output
files:
* busybox-1.21.1.rar
* AB_A0101.123.tar.gz
* source.rar
* a small text file that gives two-word descriptions of the above files
# Actual(ly Trying to) Build
<hr/>
This file included no instructions for how one might build it so we
tried to run "make" but received the following error:
$ make
.../busybox-1.21.1/scripts/gcc-version.sh: line 11:
arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc: command not found
# Toolchain?
+ The toolchain is rarely considered mandatory as part of &ldquo;the
scripts&rdquo;.
+ Admittedly, it doesn't *control* compilation, it *is* compilation.
+ The script here is explaining precisely what type of toolchain is needed.
+ Something like: &ldquo;GCC vX built with the following ./configure
line&rdquo; is usually adequate.
+ But including the toolchain is a nice step to make it easy for your users.
<hr>
> the scripts used to **control compilation** and installation of the executable.
<p align=right>
&mdash; GPLv2&sect;3
</p>
</span>
# We Guess at Compiler Anyway
<hr/>
So we searched for an arm-none-linux-gnueabi- cross-compiler in the
other files but could not find one. We then tried to use our own (be
editing the PATH appropriately), which did get us past this error. Note
that this is not acceptable in a source release - the cross-compiler
that a user must use needs to be clearly indicated (name, version, etc.)
and/or included with the source release.
# Feedback on Small Problems
<hr/>
Once we had the custom cross-compiler configured, we then ran into these
errors:
$ make
.../busybox-1.21.1/scripts/gen_build_files.sh: Permission denied
make: *** [gen_build_files] Error 127
$ make
.../busybox-1.21.1/scripts/mkconfigs: Permission denied
make: *** [include/config/MARKER] Error 126
$ make
/bin/sh: applets/usage_compressed: Permission denied
make[1]: *** [include/usage_compressed.h] Error 126
make: *** [applets_dir] Error 2
$ make
.../busybox-1.21.1/scripts/trylink: Permission denied
make: *** [busybox_unstripped] Error 126
In each case, we found the mentioned file and then added executable
permissions to it (ie. "chmod u+x scripts/gen_build_files.sh"). This
must be fixed in the next source release - please set the executable
bits on the above files appropriately in the archive file you
distribute.
# Install Instructions missing
<hr/>
After fixing the above, a "busybox" binary was generated. However,
there were no instructions to indicate how one might install this binary
on the device. Such instructions are required by GPLv2, under which
BusyBox is licensed. Please include the instructions in your next
source release.
# Build "Only Seems" To build
<hr/>
For the AAB_A0101.123.tar.gz package, we ran "./build.sh", the build
took about 140 seconds, which is less than one would expect for building
all of the programs listed in the "OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE NOTICE". The
only files we could immediately find that were clearly the result of
this "./build.sh" invocation were some kernel image binaries, found in
path/path/path/path/path/KERNEL_OBJ . This path was not mentioned at
all and we had to guess at where they might be.
# Maybe Proprietary Kernel Modules?
<hr/>
Furthermore, there were no .ko files generated, which is abnormal for a
build of the kernel, Linux. Please ensure that all .ko files which are
used on the system are generated with "./build.sh" or a similar script.
# Weird versioning
<hr/>
* The following libraries have different versions in the firmware than
is built from the candidate CCS. Specifically, your candidate CCS
contains version "1800", and the firmware has version "2400". Since
most of these libraries are licensed under the LGPL, you are required
to have the complete, corresponding source present for the correct
version as distributed in the firmware. You also must include the
"scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable".
* lib/libgio-2.0.so.0.2400.2
* lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.2400.2
* lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0.2400.2
* lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0.2400.2
* lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0.2400.2
* lib/libz.so.1.2.5 (version 1.2.2 is provided in the sources)
# Weird Build Issues Over Many Candidates
<hr/>
You mentioned in your Round 6 commentary that you have corrected the
thatlib issues. However, we are unable to see what you mean. There are
now two copies of thatlib, one in 2624.7_524/uclinux-rootfs/lib/thatlib/,
as well as the one in yourlibs. We aren't sure which one you intend to
be built to generate the binaries on the firmware. When we try to build
the yourlibs one from scratch, by cleaning the whole area, we get the
following build issues. Here's what we did:
# Getting Really build-technical
<hr/>
We ran:
make -C libsrc/thatlib install
which did not work because of a missing Makefile error. We read the
build source and discovered that the Makefile, etc, for that directory
is generated by running:
cd libsrc/thatlib/thatlib-0.9.22_mipsel-uclibc; sh configure_thatlib_mipsel-uclibc
Once we did that
make -C libsrc/thatlib install
worked correctly. The only remaining binaries were in build source and
discovered that the Makefile, etc, for that directory is generated by
running:
cd libsrc/thatlib/thatlib-0.9.22_mipsel-uclibc; sh configure_thatlib_mipsel-uclibc
# Getting Really build-technical
<hr/>
Once we did that
make -C libsrc/thatlib install
worked correctly. The only remaining binaries were in
./libsrc/thatlib/\{YOURLIB_ROOT_DIR\}/ which looks like a build with a
misconfigured environment somehow, so we simply removed that
directory.
Then, after running make clean, thatlib failed with the following
errors. Random .o/.so files laying around in the thatlib source
directory, and then it failing to build correctly after they are
removed. If there some set of .so files you claim are not required
as part of the C&CS since thatlib is LGPL'd, we understand that, but
the rest of the sources must build and install those other .so's.
Here's the build error we get in the bdvdlibs version:
# Getting Really build-technical
<hr/>
mkdir .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp
(cd .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp && ar x ../../.libs/libthatlibwm_default.a)
mkdir .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp
(cd .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp && ar x ../../.libs/libthatlibwm_default.a)
/opt/toolchains/crosstools_sf-linux-2.6.18.0_gcc-4.2-9ts_uclibc-nptl-0.9.29-20070423_20080702/bin//mipsel-uclibc-
ld -o libthatlibwm_default.o -r .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp/*.o
/opt/toolchains/crosstools_sf-linux-2.6.18.0_gcc-4.2-9ts_uclibc-nptl-0.9.29-20070423_20080702/bin//mipsel-uclibc-
ld: .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp/default.o: Relocations in generic ELF (EM: 3)
/opt/toolchains/crosstools_sf-linux-2.6.18.0_gcc-4.2-9ts_uclibc-nptl-0.9.29-20070423_20080702/bin//mipsel-uclibc-
ld: .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp/default.o: Relocations in generic ELF (EM: 3)
/opt/toolchains/crosstools_sf-linux-2.6.18.0_gcc-4.2-9ts_uclibc-nptl-0.9.29-20070423_20080702/bin//mipsel-uclibc-
ld: .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp/default.o: Relocations in generic ELF (EM: 3)
/opt/toolchains/crosstools_sf-linux-2.6.18.0_gcc-4.2-9ts_uclibc-nptl-0.9.29-20070423_20080702/bin//mipsel-uclibc-
ld: .libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp/default.o: Relocations in generic ELF (EM: 3)
.libs/libthatlibwm_default.a.tmp/default.o: could not read symbols: File in wrong format
make[4]: *** [libthatlibwm_default.o] Error 1
# Proprietary Linux Modules Are Everywhere
<hr/>
We did find one .ko file that was already included in the package, but
wasn't built when we ran "./build.sh". This is
path/path/android_X.X/device/device-type/mydevice.ko , which notes that
its license is "GPL v2" in the modinfo, but for which we could find no
source code in the source release. Please ensure that the source code
for mydevice.ko is included in the next source candidate.
# Proprietary Linux Modules Are Everywhere
<hr/>
* The following files are derivative of the kernel named Linux and
therefore covered by the GPL. However, no source code, scripts to
control compilation nor installation are included in your CCS
candidate:
lib/modules/myfilesystem.ko
lib/modules/mydevicecontroller.ko
lib/modules/myblockdevice.ko
lib/modules/mypcicard.ko
# Non-Technical GPL Compliance Issues
<hr/>
Regarding over the air updates: we'd like to see a screenshot or other
details documenting what has now been implemented by BestBuy to make
sure the offer for source appears to users appropriately after
upgrade. There was a consensus reached on the last conference call
how this would be done, so we only need follow up and implementation
on that.
# Binary Comparison.
<hr/>
Note that we did not receive a firmware image to compare this with
(though we do have the device). Company's website did not appear to
have any firmware images available for download. It would be helpful to
have such an image for the next CCS check.
The above source candidate was downloaded from
http:///sourcez.company.com/en/search/index.htm?keywords=X1234Y, which
was alluded to in Company's 2017-01-18 email to us that said:
"You can check this website
http://sourcez.company.com/en/search/index.htm "
The email did not mention how to use that website, but we found that by
entering "X1234Y" into the top right search box that we could find the
source file list.
Note that the offer for source included in the web UI of the device said
to email NAME@COMPANY.com , which is how the above instructions for
downloading the source were received.
# More Info / Talk License
<img align="right" src="cc-by-sa-4-0_88x31.png" />
<span class="fitonslide">
<p>Presentation and slides are: Copyright &copy; Bradley M. Kuhn (2008&ndash;2011, 2015, 2017), Karen M. Sandler (2017), and are licensed under the <a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License</a>. </p>
</span>
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink