Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/pam-cryptsetup.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.1.20190823.7b42892.fc31.src.rpm Description: pam-cryptsetup provides a PAM module that allows LUKS-based disk encryption passwords to be kept in sync with account passwords automatically based on factors like if the user has decrypted the disk successfully previously. The project as a whole consists of two parts: a PAM module pam_cryptsetup.so for triggering on user authentication, and a helper program pam_cryptsetup_helper to perform the actual encryption checks and modifications required. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
I will take this review. Upstream adds -Wall to the build flags, and the leads to a failure to build in Rawhide: make[2]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/pam-cryptsetup/src' gcc -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"pam-cryptsetup\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"pam-cryptsetup\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"0.1\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"pam-cryptsetup\ 0.1\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKAGE_URL=\"\" -DPACKAGE=\"pam-cryptsetup\" -DVERSION=\"0.1\" -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_MEMORY_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_DLFCN_H=1 -DLT_OBJDIR=\".libs/\" -DHAVE_LIBCRYPTSETUP=1 -DHAVE_LIBPAM=1 -DHAVE_ERRNO_H=1 -DHAVE_FCNTL_H=1 -DHAVE_STDIO_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_MMAN_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_WAIT_H=1 -DHAVE_SYSEXITS_H=1 -DHAVE_SYSLOG_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_LIBCRYPTSETUP_H=1 -DHAVE_LIBDEVMAPPER_H=1 -DHAVE_SECURITY_PAM_EXT_H=1 -DHAVE_SECURITY_PAM_MODULES_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_MALLOC=1 -DHAVE_MEMSET=1 -DHAVE_EXPLICIT_BZERO=1 -I. -DCACHE_DIR='"/usr/var/pam_cryptsetup"' -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -Wall -Werror -DG_LOG_DOMAIN="\"pamcryptsetup\"" -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -fstack-protector-all -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now, -Wformat -Wformat-security -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -c -o pam_cryptsetup_helper-helper.o `test -f 'helper.c' || echo './'`helper.c make[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/pam-cryptsetup/src' In file included from /usr/include/string.h:495, from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gtestutils.h:30, from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib.h:85, from helper.h:18, from helper.c:15: In function 'strncpy', inlined from 'main' at helper.c:386:9: /usr/include/bits/string_fortified.h:106:10: error: '__builtin_strncpy' specified bound 100 equals destination size [-Werror=stringop-truncation] 106 | return __builtin___strncpy_chk (__dest, __src, __len, __bos (__dest)); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors make[2]: *** [Makefile:1022: pam_cryptsetup_helper-helper.o] Error 1
Ugh, missed this update. I thought I caught all truncation warnings but must have missed one.
SPEC URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/pam-cryptsetup.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc30.src.rpm So parenthesizing an expression no longer suppresses a warning (my diff sort of worked because I also subtracted by 1 in two call sites; not sure why on Fedora 30/31 the first strcpy did not trigger a warning). Since -Wall is part of the Fedora default compiler flags I don't want to touch it, but I've reworked the patch to now use #pragma for the entire block where helper.c does strcpy and then verify the null terminator is in place.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Remove "rm -rf %{buildroot} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the start of %install. See the third bullet point here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections - There is an unused direct library dependency: $ ldd -u /usr/lib64/security/pam_cryptsetup.so Unused direct dependencies: /lib64/libcryptsetup.so.12 This is due to libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed *after* the libraries to be linked. I usually insert this snippet into my spec files, between %configure and %make_build, to address that issue. I'm offering this as a suggestion; take it or leave it as you wish. # Workaround libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries. sed -i 's|CC="\(.*g..\)"|CC="\1 -Wl,--as-needed"|' libtool - Another suggestion: it is possible to give a valid URL for Source0. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision. In this case, the URL would be something like this (you would have to add a definition for %commit): Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{snapshot_rev}.tar.gz The benefit is that you can use spectool to download future versions of the tarball. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm pam-cryptsetup-debugsource-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.src.rpm pam-cryptsetup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypted -> encrypted pam-cryptsetup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypted -> encrypted pam-cryptsetup.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pam-cryptsetup-0.1-7b42892.tar.xz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- pam-cryptsetup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypted -> encrypted 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- pam-cryptsetup: /usr/lib64/security/pam_cryptsetup.so Requires -------- pam-cryptsetup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcryptsetup.so.12()(64bit) libcryptsetup.so.12(CRYPTSETUP_2.0)(64bit) libdevmapper.so.1.02()(64bit) libdevmapper.so.1.02(Base)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pam-cryptsetup-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pam-cryptsetup: pam-cryptsetup pam-cryptsetup(x86-64) pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo(x86-64) pam-cryptsetup-debugsource: pam-cryptsetup-debugsource pam-cryptsetup-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1804529 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl, Ruby, fonts, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! Will update soon. All this scrambling around with WFH made me neglect this request.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ > Added > - Remove "rm -rf %{buildroot} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the start of %install. See > the third bullet point here: > Removed, thanks. Not sure why rpmdev-newspec's template still has this line! I'll file a patch for that too > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > > - There is an unused direct library dependency: > $ ldd -u /usr/lib64/security/pam_cryptsetup.so > Unused direct dependencies: > /lib64/libcryptsetup.so.12 > > This is due to libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed *after* the libraries to > be > linked. I usually insert this snippet into my spec files, between > %configure > and %make_build, to address that issue. I'm offering this as a suggestion; > take it or leave it as you wish. > > # Workaround libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries. > sed -i 's|CC="\(.*g..\)"|CC="\1 -Wl,--as-needed"|' libtool > Thanks! > - Another suggestion: it is possible to give a valid URL for Source0. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision. In > this > case, the URL would be something like this (you would have to add a > definition for %commit): > > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{snapshot_rev}.tar.gz > > The benefit is that you can use spectool to download future versions of the > tarball. > Believe it or not, coming back to packaging after a while, I tried to find that page and couldn't. Thanks! Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/pam-cryptsetup.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.3.20190823.7b42892.fc32.src.rpm
Looks good. This package is APPROVED.
Thanks!
Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24075
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pam-cryptsetup
FEDORA-2020-6b7dfaec4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b7dfaec4e
FEDORA-2020-b566e12a5e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b566e12a5e
FEDORA-2020-c1fdb17429 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c1fdb17429
FEDORA-2020-b566e12a5e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-b566e12a5e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b566e12a5e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-6b7dfaec4e has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6b7dfaec4e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b7dfaec4e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-c1fdb17429 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-c1fdb17429 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c1fdb17429 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-6b7dfaec4e has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-b566e12a5e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-c1fdb17429 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.