Discussion:
[Bug 1396819] New: Review Request: libkcapi - User space interface to the Linux Kernel Crypto API
(too old to reply)
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 14:49:36 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819

Bug ID: 1396819
Summary: Review Request: libkcapi - User space interface to the
Linux Kernel Crypto API
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: ***@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: ***@in.waw.pl
QA Contact: extras-***@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/libkcapi.spec
SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/libkcapi-0.12.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description:
libkcapi allows user-space to access the Linux kernel crypto API.

This library uses the netlink interface and exports easy to use APIs
so that a developer does not need to consider the low-level netlink
interface handling.

The library does not implement any cipher algorithms. All consumer
requests are sent to the kernel for processing. Results from the
kernel crypto API are returned to the consumer via the library API.

The kernel interface and therefore this library can be used by
unprivileged processes.

Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek
koji build w/o arm64:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16538967
(Note that the build seems stuck on all 32bit arches, I'm looking into this.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leav
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 15:05:15 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko <***@redhat.com> ---
- BuildRequires: valgrind
actually it's available not on all arches, so you can wrap it with %ifarch
%{valgrind_arches} (same in %check)

- ln -s libkcapi.so.0 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libkcapi.so
I'm not sure what SONAME that library will have (I guess wrong)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-revie
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 15:33:25 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
See also: https://github.com/smuellerDD/libkcapi/pull/5

SONAME is set during build:
gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libkcapi.so.0 -o libkcapi.so.0.12.0 kcapi-kernel-if.o
kdf.o -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now -Wl,--version-script,version.lds
I think this is correct.

Pfff, I forgot about valgrind. But this is a debugging measure anyway,
hopefully it'll go away soon.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-***@li
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819

Thomas Andrejak <***@gmail.com> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |***@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Thomas Andrejak <***@gmail.com> ---
I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial.

- Patchs
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines
Patch01 -> Patch1
0001.... -> remove 0001, etc
0002-build-sys-create-all-destination-directories-and-do-.patch -> why an
ending - ?
For each patch, please add the issue URL to upstream

- %description devel
The %{name}-devel package contains header files for developing
applications that use %{name}.
=> Header files for developing applications that use %{name}

- %build
Why are you forcing cflags instead of making patchs ?

- %check
%ifarch aarch64
./test.sh || :
%else
./test.sh || :
%endif
=> why this "if" with same inside block ?

- %license
Have you forgotten COPYING.bsd ?

- %doc %{_mandir}/man3/kcapi_*.3*
=> man pages are not %doc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 16:01:38 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #4 from Thomas Andrejak <***@gmail.com> ---
Also :

- BuildRequires gcc make are not needed

- manpage should go to main package
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-r
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 16:09:37 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #3)
Post by b***@redhat.com
I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial.
- Patchs
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines
Patch01 -> Patch1
0001.... -> remove 0001, etc
0002-build-sys-create-all-destination-directories-and-do-.patch -> why an
ending - ?
For each patch, please add the issue URL to upstream
That's a git thing, it truncates patch subjects at a certain width.

I'll add a link to the upstream PR.
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %description devel
The %{name}-devel package contains header files for developing
applications that use %{name}.
=> Header files for developing applications that use %{name}
OK.
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %build
Why are you forcing cflags instead of making patchs ?
Hm, I don't understand. Why should I make patches?
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %check
%ifarch aarch64
%else
%endif
=> why this "if" with same inside block ?
Typo ;)
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %license
Have you forgotten COPYING.bsd ?
No, COPYING already contains the text of the BSD license. But I guess it's
safer to include both, I'll add it COPYING.bsd too.
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %doc %{_mandir}/man3/kcapi_*.3*
=> man pages are not %doc
Indeed, will fix.

(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #4)
Post by b***@redhat.com
- BuildRequires gcc make are not needed
No, fedora-review is misleading you. This changed a few months ago.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2.
Post by b***@redhat.com
- manpage should go to main package
I don't think so. Those are all man pages in section 3, only useful for
development.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pac
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 16:14:21 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #3)
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %doc %{_mandir}/man3/kcapi_*.3*
=> man pages are not %doc
Oh, I misread. I though you meant that I forgot to put %doc on those pages, not
that I should remove it. I don't see why you think %doc is not applicable, this
is clearly documentation.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 16:41:46 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
Updated in place:
* Sun Nov 20 2016 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> - 0.12.0-1
- Add more patches and link to upstream pull request
- Update %%description
- Drop valgrind invocation, it wasn't helping
- Skip tests on 32 bits
- Add BSD license file for completeness

Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/libkcapi.spec
SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/libkcapi-0.12.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16545948
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 16:43:28 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #8 from Thomas Andrejak <***@gmail.com> ---
For %doc and manpages, in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages the example do not
put the %doc macro. That's why I said it. The wiki is wrong ?
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %build
Why are you forcing cflags instead of making patchs ?
Hm, I don't understand. Why should I make patches?
=> I don't think that overwriting CFLAGS is a good thing because the
environment can set it. (I may think wrong). For example for hardening. So I
try to never do this and prefer patch makefile or other file to do what I need
to do.
Post by b***@redhat.com
- manpage should go to main package
I don't think so. Those are all man pages in section 3, only useful for
development.
=> Also in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages , the
example put manpage in main package. But you are right, this man page is for
developpeurs, not users. I agree with you.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-***@lists.fedoraproject.or
b***@redhat.com
2016-11-20 17:48:00 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #8)
Post by b***@redhat.com
For %doc and manpages, in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages the example do
not put the %doc macro. That's why I said it. The wiki is wrong ?
There's no clear-cut guideline. In the example it's a page in section 1, so it
makes some sense to install it even with --nodoc. It is also quite likely that
%doc was simply forgotten. It's hard to say. Also note that the example is just
that, it's the text that is authoritative.
Post by b***@redhat.com
Post by b***@redhat.com
- %build
Why are you forcing cflags instead of making patchs ?
Hm, I don't understand. Why should I make patches?
=> I don't think that overwriting CFLAGS is a good thing because the
environment can set it. (I may think wrong). For example for hardening. So I
try to never do this and prefer patch makefile or other file to do what I
need to do.
To patch, to sed, or to set variables, is just a mechanism. Most things can be
achieved with any of them, it's just a question which is the most convenient.
In this case, I'd say, settings CLFAGS *is* that.

Note that the hardening flags are used (via %optflags). This should always be
verified by looking at the build log:

gcc -fPIC -std=gnu99 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -fwrapv -fvisibility=hidden
-c -o kdf.o kdf.c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
b***@redhat.com
2017-01-16 16:18:34 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
(BTW: I plan to return to this soon...)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
b***@redhat.com
2017-09-12 06:00:50 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819

Stephan Mueller <***@atsec.com> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |***@atsec.com



--- Comment #11 from Stephan Mueller <***@atsec.com> ---
A spec file working on Fedora 26 (tested with mockbuild) is now available
upstream: https://github.com/smuellerDD/libkcapi/blob/master/libkcapi.spec

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-***@lists.f
b***@redhat.com
2017-10-15 19:12:27 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819



--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <***@in.waw.pl> ---
Hmm, I wanted to package libkcapi as a dependency for another project, but the
direction shifted. I won't have time for this in the near future, so if
somebody wants to take over, feel free.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
b***@redhat.com
2018-01-12 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396819

Björn "besser82" Esser <***@fedoraproject.org> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC| |***@fedoraproject.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed| |2018-01-12 09:56:36



--- Comment #13 from Björn "besser82" Esser <***@fedoraproject.org> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
Post by b***@redhat.com
Hmm, I wanted to package libkcapi as a dependency for another project, but
the direction shifted. I won't have time for this in the near future, so if
somebody wants to take over, feel free.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1533929 ***

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-***@lis

Loading...