Bug 1875517 - Review Request: intel-ipsec-mb - Software Crypto Library
Summary: Review Request: intel-ipsec-mb - Software Crypto Library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michel Lind
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-09-03 16:27 UTC by Tomasz Kantecki
Modified: 2020-10-03 02:01 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-09-29 00:16:46 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
michel: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1832780 1 None None None 2021-11-07 07:31:49 UTC

Description Tomasz Kantecki 2020-09-03 16:27:25 UTC
Looking to add intel-ipsec-mb package to Fedora and EPEL.


1. Feature Overview:
a. Software Crypto Library optimized for Intel Architecture primarily for packet processing applications.
b. Feature Description: The library provides optimized algorithms leveraging new instruction available on Ice Lake processors. For TLS/SSL application, the optimization can be consumed through Intel QAT OpenSSL Engine to get significant performance boost.

The package includes shared library that offers software cryptography API's. Primary application area of the library is packet processing (IPSec/TLS).
It is already used as crypto provider by other frameworks such as DPDK or FD.io VPP.

Source is available at github
  https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb
  https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/releases

Proposed package SPEC file is ready for review at:
  https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/blob/master/rpm/intel-ipsec-mb.spec

License:
  3-clause BSD license
  https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/blob/master/LICENSE

2. Feature Details:
  a) Architectures:
       64-bit Intel EM64T/AMD64

  b) Bugzilla Dependencies:
       Previously proposed for RHEL packaging.
       After discussion the decision was to package for Fedora and EPEL. See:
         https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832780
  c) Drivers or hardware dependencies: Whitley Platform
  d) Upstream acceptance information:
  e) External links:
       Source is available at github
         https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb
         https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/releases

       Proposed package SPEC file is ready for review at:
         https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/blob/master/rpm/intel-ipsec-mb.spec
  f) Severity (H,M,L):
	    H (required for Intel QAT OpenSSL Engine)

3. Primary contact
       Kantecki, Tomasz <tomasz.kantecki>

Comment 1 Michel Lind 2020-09-03 19:38:20 UTC
Taking this review. note - for future reference, it would help to have a working link to the spec and SRPM available so fedora-review can process it automatically (fedora-review -b 1875517); I had to follow the link to the spec file, grab the raw file, and build my own SRPM.

Comment 2 Michel Lind 2020-09-03 20:42:52 UTC
There's some critical issues to fix, but after that I can approve the package

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- devel should require the exact main package, not any later version; use %{name}%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
  see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_specific_dependencies
- optimization flags not applied. Please either use the built-in macros (%make_build and %make_install) or pass %{optflags} directly
- rename the source file when downloading to make it more obvious what package it contains: https://github.com/intel/%{githubname}/archive/v%{githubver}.tar.gz#/%{githubfull}.tar.gz
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in intel-ipsec-mb
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
  EPEL7 has RPM 4.11.3, and EPEL8 has RPM 4.14.2; this change applies to RPM 4.13+. If you want to keep this, gate the ldconfig call to:
  %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} < 8
  %post -p /sbin/ldconfig

  %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
  %endif
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages
  This file should be in -devel and not in the main package
- license file installation
  no need to install the license file yourself, this suffices:
  %license LICENSE

  rpmbuild will copy the license file to the correct folder

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/review-intel-ipsec-
     mb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses/intel-ipsec-mb-0.54.0
     see summary above for installing license file
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses/intel-
     ipsec-mb-0.54.0
     see above
[!]: %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
     .so file should be in -devel
[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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in intel-
     ipsec-mb-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
     please use -p when calling install
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: intel-ipsec-mb-0.54.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          intel-ipsec-mb-devel-0.54.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          intel-ipsec-mb-0.54.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so.0.54.0
intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so.0.54.0
intel-ipsec-mb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
intel-ipsec-mb-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
intel-ipsec-mb: /usr/lib64/libIPSec_MB.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/archive/v0.54.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8c6d59d68ee567a3c9db0967e3ca18cb61cddd73d07feed8a9b232106607228d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c6d59d68ee567a3c9db0967e3ca18cb61cddd73d07feed8a9b232106607228d


Requires
--------
intel-ipsec-mb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libIPSec_MB.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

intel-ipsec-mb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    intel-ipsec-mb



Provides
--------
intel-ipsec-mb:
    intel-ipsec-mb
    intel-ipsec-mb(x86-64)
    libIPSec_MB.so.0()(64bit)

intel-ipsec-mb-devel:
    intel-ipsec-mb-devel
    intel-ipsec-mb-devel(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name intel-ipsec-mb
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, R, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Tomasz Kantecki 2020-09-14 08:49:48 UTC
Many thanks for your feedback.

The spec file has been updated based on the comments above and published at
https://github.com/intel/intel-ipsec-mb/blob/master/rpm/intel-ipsec-mb.spec

There is some overlap between %{optflags} and current CFLAGS settings but I guess this is not a problem.

Comment 4 Michel Lind 2020-09-15 22:38:46 UTC
Yep, adding %{optflags} as EXTRA_CFLAGS, assuming that means they get appended at the end, should be fine as they will override the defaults. I'll take another pass at this tonight.

Comment 5 Michel Lind 2020-09-17 05:20:13 UTC
All existing issues addressed. APPROVED

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-09-24 14:47:04 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-ipsec-mb

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 15:42:41 UTC
FEDORA-2020-c7fd96b976 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c7fd96b976

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 18:13:27 UTC
FEDORA-2020-e40a1e87f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-e40a1e87f3 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e40a1e87f3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 18:35:51 UTC
FEDORA-2020-c7fd96b976 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-c7fd96b976 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c7fd96b976

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2020-09-29 00:16:46 UTC
FEDORA-2020-e40a1e87f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2020-10-03 02:01:50 UTC
FEDORA-2020-c7fd96b976 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.