Bug 1734927

Created attachment 1595349 [details]
build.log

Created attachment 1595350 [details]
root.log

file root.log too big, will only attach last 32768 bytes

Created attachment 1595351 [details]
state.log

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.

I have found the root cause but I would like for help to resolve it. Build fails only with rpmbuild, due to the different LDFLAGS and CFLAGS.

With rpmbuild the linking fails for the functions defined in assembler. These functions will get underscore in front of their name:

$ objdump -d aes-amd64.o | grep aes_encrypt                
0000000000000000 <_aes_encrypt>:

Outside of rpmbuild (plain configure && make amd64) this does not happen:
$ objdump -d aes-amd64.o | grep -2 aes_encrypt
0000000000000000 <aes_encrypt>:

There is no undescore. 

Could you please point me to some documentation? Why is this happening and how can I fix that? 

This seems to be relevant but I still don't know what is the best option for the fix:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1034852/adding-leading-underscores-to-assembly-symbols-with-gcc-on-win32

Thanks!
Jirka

I can fix by adding the asm("_assembly_function_name") to the header files like this:

aes.h:extern void aes_set_key(aes_context *, const unsigned char [], const int, const int) asm ("_aes_set_key");
aes.h:extern void aes_encrypt(const aes_context *, const unsigned char [], unsigned char []) asm ("_aes_encrypt");
aes.h:extern void aes_decrypt(const aes_context *, const unsigned char [], unsigned char []) asm ("_aes_decrypt");
md5.h:extern void md5_transform_CPUbyteorder(u_int32_t *, u_int32_t const *) asm("_md5_transform_CPUbyteorder");
md5.h:extern void md5_transform_CPUbyteorder_2x(u_int32_t *, u_int32_t const *, u_int32_t const *) asm("_md5_transform_CPUbyteorder_2x");

but I'm not sure if this is the right approach. I would prefer changing the compiler flags instead. Any ideas?

I came up with this patch. I will consult it with the author of aespipe. 

$cat aespipe-v2.4e-underline.patch
diff -ru aespipe-v2.4e-orig/aes.h aespipe-v2.4e/aes.h
--- aespipe-v2.4e-orig/aes.h    2004-06-12 16:31:41.000000000 +0200
+++ aespipe-v2.4e/aes.h 2019-08-15 03:44:54.661201314 +0200
@@ -42,6 +42,13 @@
 #  include <sys/types.h>
 #endif
 
+#if defined(USE_UNDERLINE)
+#  define aes_set_key _aes_set_key
+#  define aes_encrypt _aes_encrypt
+#  define aes_decrypt _aes_decrypt
+#endif
+
+
 // CONFIGURATION OPTIONS (see also aes.c)
 //
 // Define AES_BLOCK_SIZE to set the cipher block size (16, 24 or 32) or
diff -ru aespipe-v2.4e-orig/md5.h aespipe-v2.4e/md5.h
--- aespipe-v2.4e-orig/md5.h    2010-04-11 12:12:11.000000000 +0200
+++ aespipe-v2.4e/md5.h 2019-08-15 03:44:54.672201317 +0200
@@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
 #  include <sys/types.h>
 #endif
 
+#if defined(USE_UNDERLINE)
+#  define md5_transform_CPUbyteorder _md5_transform_CPUbyteorder
+#  define md5_transform_CPUbyteorder_2x _md5_transform_CPUbyteorder_2x
+#endif
+
+
 #if defined(__linux__) && defined(__KERNEL__) && (defined(X86_ASM) || defined(AMD64_ASM))
  asmlinkage
 #endif

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
can be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages which still have open FTBFS bugs from Fedora 31 will be retired.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
can be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages which still have open FTBFS bugs from Fedora 31 will be retired.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
can be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages which still have open FTBFS bugs from Fedora 31 will be retired.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
can be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages which still have open FTBFS bugs from Fedora 31 will be retired.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
will be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages not successfully rebuilt at least on 30 will be
retired regardless of the status of this bug.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
will be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages not successfully rebuilt at least on 30 will be
retired regardless of the status of this bug.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

Dear Maintainer,

your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action is required from you.

If you can fix your package to build, perform a build in koji, and either create
an update in bodhi, or close this bug without creating an update, if updating is
not appropriate [1]. If you are working on a fix, set the status to ASSIGNED to
acknowledge this. Following the latest policy for such packages [2], your package
will be orphaned if this bug remains in NEW state more than 8 weeks.

A week before the mass branching of Fedora 32 according to the schedule [3],
any packages not successfully rebuilt at least on 30 will be
retired regardless of the status of this bug.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/32/Schedule

The following builds were made: aespipe-2.4e-4.fc31 aespipe-2.4e-5.fc31