Spec URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx.spec SRPM URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx-2.25-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: The Intel SGX SDK is a collection of APIs, libraries, documentations and tools that allow software developers to create and debug Intel SGX enabled applications in C/C++. Fedora Account System Username: berrange
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8587790 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2342978-linux-sgx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08587790-linux-sgx/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Well this is complicated ... You can add repack as a source line if you want. What's the reason for doing this? %{?_smp_mflags} -j1 Build currently fails because of missing dependencies, but I think we're adding the deps to Rawhide now / soon so I'll try to do a build when those are there.
My scratch build failed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128901722
Oh fun, we've been broken by GCC switching to the gnu23 C standard In file included from crypto/pcl_sha256.c:94: ./crypto/pcl_crypto_internal.h:41:22: error: ‘bool’ cannot be defined via ‘typedef’ 41 | typedef unsigned int bool; | ^~~~ ./crypto/pcl_crypto_internal.h:41:22: note: ‘bool’ is a keyword with ‘-std=c23’ onwards
Fixing the 'bool' compat problem was easy, but that just uncovered a further GCC 15 compat issue that is impossible to workaround. SGX was relying on a (questionably supported) GCC C++ extension, and GCC 15 is now rejecting this. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2344173 I'm blocked waiting to see what GCC decide to do about this before we can progress SGX. If GCC decides to keep the rejection then we're in a hard place, as I'm unsure how to change the code to avoid the now rejected behaviour.
Refreshed at: Spec URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx.spec SRPM URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx-2.25-1.fc41.src.rpm Note, while I solved one GCC15 compat problem, this still won't build in rawhide, pending bug 2344173, but figure it can be reviewed while we wait for that GCC fix. > You can add repack as a source line if you want. Added that > What's the reason for doing this? > %{?_smp_mflags} -j1 The intention was that we honour %{?_smp_mflags} always. The build system has bugs in places which force me to (temporarily) add -j1 to serialize it. Since the use of -j1 was temporary, I left %{?_smp_mflags} so we could just drop the '-j1' bit and return to parallel builds at a later date. A few of the -j1 bits are obsolete so I've removed them, and added comments in the other cases that these are temporary hacks
Created attachment 2075464 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8587790 to 8625878
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8625878 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2342978-linux-sgx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08625878-linux-sgx/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Refreshed again: Spec URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx.spec SRPM URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx-2.25-1.fc43.src.rpm Includes a temporary hack to cull the code that tickles the GCC 15 bug, so it now builds in rawhide.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause-UC AND GPL-2.0-only AND ISC AND MIT AND MIT-0 AND NCSA AND OpenSSL AND SMLNJ AND SunPro AND LicenseRef-Public-Domain'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 This seems to be a problem. - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: sgx-enclave-devel. Does not provide -static: sgx-enclave-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries The .a files in -devel are a bit special. They provide the "SGX enclave runtime". When making an enclave you have to link with them, and they include everything needed (even the C runtime?). So they're not really Fedora static libraries in the ordinary sense. - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in sgx-aesm, sgx-mpa, tdx-qgs See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets Maybe a problem? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. These are part of the SGX SDK, so not really used in the normal sense of *.so files. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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 2-Clause License and/or BSD 3-Clause License and/or Eclipse Public License 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Eclipse Public License 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 2-clause NetBSD License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or OpenSSL License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Standard ML of New Jersey License", "MIT No Attribution", "BSD 4-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or BSD 4-Clause License", "OpenSSL License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California- Specific)", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Microsoft Public License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License 1.0", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Public domain", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License", "SSLeay", "Apache License 1.0 and/or OpenSSL License", "zlib License", "ISC License and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 2501 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2342978-linux-sgx/licensecheck.txt The license analysis in the spec looks fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Yes, since the other packages require sgx-common, and sgx-common includes the licenses. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/aesmd, /usr/lib64/aesmd, /usr/lib64/aesmd/bundles Seems like an issue. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64, /usr/lib/.build-id/5b, /usr/lib64/aesmd/bundles, /usr/share/aesmd, /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx, /usr/lib/.build-id/47, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib64/aesmd That .build-id directory also seems wrong. Note this is from a mock-built package on my machine. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/x86_64-intel- sgx/lib64(sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common) Unclear. As far as I'm aware it's OK for multiple RPMs to own a directory. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It doesn't use the compiler flags, but justifies this in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. We believe that current policy allows bundling with an exception, provided that the Provides: bundled() dependencies are added, which they are here. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Uses autochangelog. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Eventually after a lot of repacking, yes. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. I'm not sure what it's complaining about here. There's a BuildConflicts line, but it is justified. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. (See paths problems above) [x]: 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. [x]: 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. It has justified ExclusiveArch. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4346 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). Complicated, but seems correct. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sgx- common , sgx-enclave-latest-pce-unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-ide- unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-qe3-unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe- unsigned , sgx-enclave-devel , sgx-devel , sgx-libs , sgx-aesm , sgx- pccs-admin , sgx-pckid-tool , sgx-mpa , tdx-qgs , tdx-attest-libs , tdx-attest-devel Unclear. [-]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments This is fine, as tarball is repacked. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No tests. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define linux_sgx_version 2.25, %define dcap_version 1.22, %define dcap_qvl_version 1.21, %define dcap_qvs_version 1.1.0-2885, %define sgx_ssl_version 3.0_Rev4, %define ipp_crypto_version 2021.12.1, %define sgx_emm_version 1.0.3, %define openssl_version 3.0.14, %define libcbor_version 0.10.2, %define abseil_cpp_version 20230125.3, %define jwt_cpp_version 0.6.0, %define wamr_version 1.3.3, %define epid_version 6.0.0, %define rdrand_version 1.1, %define vtune_version 2018, %define enclave_pce_version 2.25, %define enclave_ide_version 1.22, %define enclave_qe3_version 1.22, %define enclave_tdqe_version 1.22, %define enclave_qve_version 1.22, %define with_enclaves 1, %define with_enclave_pce 1, %define with_enclave_ide 1, %define with_enclave_qe3 1, %define with_enclave_tdqe 1, %define with_enclave_qve 0, %define _with_enclave_pce %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_pce} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_ide %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_ide} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_qe3 %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_qe3} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_tdqe %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_tdqe} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_qve %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_qve} : 0}, %define vroot build/vroot I believe this requirement is wrong, %define is fine with modern RPM. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. (will attach rpmlint output separately as it's too large for a bugzilla comment)
Created attachment 2076455 [details] Full review with rpmlint output
Created attachment 2076458 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8625878 to 8654414
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8654414 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2342978-linux-sgx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08654414-linux-sgx/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause-UC AND GPL-2.0-only AND ISC AND MIT AND MIT-0 AND NCSA AND OpenSSL AND SMLNJ AND SunPro AND LicenseRef-Public-Domain'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Package has .a files: sgx-enclave-devel. Does not provide -static: sgx-enclave-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries - Systemd service file(s) in sgx-aesm, sgx-mpa, tdx-qgs Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #10) > Issues: > ======= > - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND > BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause-UC AND GPL-2.0-only AND > ISC AND MIT AND MIT-0 AND NCSA AND OpenSSL AND SMLNJ AND SunPro AND > LicenseRef-Public-Domain'. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 > > This seems to be a problem. Yes, same as my other package, it should be LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain > - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and > systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. > Note: Systemd service file(s) in sgx-aesm, sgx-mpa, tdx-qgs > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets > > Maybe a problem? I had scripts for aesm, but forgot scripts for mpa/qgs, so have added those now. I also added scripts for sysusers, but conditionalized for RHEL only given Fedora 42 relies on RPM magic now. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/aesmd, /usr/lib64/aesmd, > /usr/lib64/aesmd/bundles > > Seems like an issue. Those dirs are now owned by sgx-aesm. > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, > /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64, /usr/lib/.build-id/5b, > /usr/lib64/aesmd/bundles, /usr/share/aesmd, /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx, > /usr/lib/.build-id/47, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib64/aesmd > > That .build-id directory also seems wrong. Note this is from a > mock-built package on my machine. I've added ownership of those dirs except the wierd build-id ones. > [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/x86_64-intel- > sgx/lib64(sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common) > > Unclear. As far as I'm aware it's OK for multiple RPMs to own a > directory. Yep, multiple packages can own a dir provided they agree on permissions, which is trivial if relying no default permissions > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. > Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. > > I'm not sure what it's complaining about here. There's a > BuildConflicts line, but it is justified. Yeah, I think it is the BuildConflicts it is reporting, which is ok. > > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sgx- > common , sgx-enclave-latest-pce-unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-ide- > unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-qe3-unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe- > unsigned , sgx-enclave-devel , sgx-devel , sgx-libs , sgx-aesm , sgx- > pccs-admin , sgx-pckid-tool , sgx-mpa , tdx-qgs , tdx-attest-libs , > tdx-attest-devel > > Unclear. There is no "%{name}" package emitted at all, so it is a false positive to add such a dep Several of the subpackages do have deps on the -libs sub-RPM, which fully set the version + release, but omit %{_?isa} which is fine since this is ExclusiveArch to a single target > [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define linux_sgx_version 2.25, > %define dcap_version 1.22, %define dcap_qvl_version 1.21, %define > dcap_qvs_version 1.1.0-2885, %define sgx_ssl_version 3.0_Rev4, %define > ipp_crypto_version 2021.12.1, %define sgx_emm_version 1.0.3, %define > openssl_version 3.0.14, %define libcbor_version 0.10.2, %define > abseil_cpp_version 20230125.3, %define jwt_cpp_version 0.6.0, %define > wamr_version 1.3.3, %define epid_version 6.0.0, %define rdrand_version > 1.1, %define vtune_version 2018, %define enclave_pce_version 2.25, > %define enclave_ide_version 1.22, %define enclave_qe3_version 1.22, > %define enclave_tdqe_version 1.22, %define enclave_qve_version 1.22, > %define with_enclaves 1, %define with_enclave_pce 1, %define > with_enclave_ide 1, %define with_enclave_qe3 1, %define > with_enclave_tdqe 1, %define with_enclave_qve 0, %define > _with_enclave_pce %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_pce} : 0}, > %define _with_enclave_ide %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? > %{with_enclave_ide} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_qe3 > %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_qe3} : 0}, %define > _with_enclave_tdqe %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_tdqe} : > 0}, %define _with_enclave_qve %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? > %{with_enclave_qve} : 0}, %define vroot build/vroot > > I believe this requirement is wrong, %define is fine with modern RPM. I switched to %global regardless, just to be consistent within the spec as I had mixed both
sgx-enclave-latest-ide-unsigned.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.so sgx-enclave-latest-pce-unsigned.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.so sgx-enclave-latest-qe3-unsigned.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.so sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe-unsigned.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.so False positive. these are the static SGX enclaves, masquerading as shared object due to intel's wierd file ext choice. sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_capable.a sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_dcap_tvl.a ..snip.. sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_utls.a sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libtdx_tls.a False positive. These are all static libs that provide the SGX enclave runtime library. Including debug symbols is not relevant, as you cannot attach a debugger to an SGX enclave. sgx-enclave-latest-ide-unsigned.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('toolchain', 'Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, blockchain') sgx-enclave-latest-ide-unsigned.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('toolchain', '%description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, blockchain') ...snip... sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe-unsigned.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('toolchain', 'Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, blockchain') sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe-unsigned.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('toolchain', '%description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, blockchain') Will change to 'tool-chain' linux-sgx.spec:511: W: setup-not-quiet Will add -q sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib64/aesmd/aesm_service sgx-mpa.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/mpa_manage sgx-mpa.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/mpa_registration sgx-pckid-tool.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/PCKIDRetrievalTool tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/qgs Valid complaint. These should be built as PIE binaries, but the SGX build system is horrendous so thus far I've not been able to solve this, and don't propose fixing it for review. Will leave it on my TODO list though, to feed back to upstream. sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/aesmd aesmd sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/aesmd aesmd tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/tdx-qgs qgs tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/qgs qgs sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/aesmd aesmd sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/aesmd aesmd tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/tdx-qgs qgs tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/qgs qgs False positive, these user accounts are created by the sysusers files sgx-aesm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/aesmd 700 tdx-qgs.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/tdx-qgs 700 False positive, and IMHO bug in rpmlint that it only accepts 755 and calls it an error, not warning, as there are plenty of reasons to want other permissions. sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_epid_sim.so sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_launch_sim.so sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_ptrace.so sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_quote_ex_sim.so sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_uae_service_sim.so sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_capable.so libsgx_capable.so sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libsgx_urts_sim.so libsgx_urts_sim.so Sigh yes, but not something we should unilaterally fix downstream. Another item to take to upstream sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aesmd sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sgx-gdb sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sgx_config_cpusvn sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sgx_edger8r sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sgx_encrypt sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sgx_sign sgx-mpa.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpa_manage sgx-mpa.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpa_registration sgx-pccs-admin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pccsadmin sgx-pckid-tool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PCKIDRetrievalTool tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qgs Valid, but not to be fixed. Upstream provides docs in PDFs (sic) sgx-enclave-latest-ide-unsigned.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.so sgx-enclave-latest-pce-unsigned.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.so sgx-enclave-latest-qe3-unsigned.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.so sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe-unsigned.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.so False positive, again these are SGX enclaves not normal shared libraries, despite the file ext sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-latest-ide-unsigned.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-latest-pce-unsigned.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-latest-qe3-unsigned.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe-unsigned.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-mpa.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-pccs-admin.x86_64: W: no-documentation tdx-attest-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-common.x86_64: E: no-binary sgx-pccs-admin.x86_64: E: no-binary False positive, since the package is ExclusiveArch x86_64, there's no point making these noarch. linux-sgx.spec: W: no-%check-section No practical tests to run linux-sgx.spec:203: W: macro-in-comment %{dcap_version} linux-sgx.spec:203: W: macro-in-comment %{dcap_version} linux-sgx.spec:1044: W: macro-in-comment %{sgx_includedir} linux-sgx.spec:1046: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir} False positive, harmless & intentional. sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: lto-no-text-in-archive /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pcl.a sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: E: lto-no-text-in-archive /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pclsim.a False positive, Not normal libraries, this is SGX enclave code linux-sgx.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: prebuilt_dcap_1.22-repacked.tar.gz False positive, required due to need to strip forbidden source files. linux-sgx.src: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-aesm.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain ...snip... tdx-attest-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain tdx-qgs.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain Should be LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain sgx-common.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/sgx-common/licenses/external/dcap_source/tools/SGXPlatformRegistration/inf/MPA_UEFI_Components/License.txt /usr/share/licenses/sgx-common/licenses/external/dcap_source/tools/PCKRetrievalTool/License.txt:/usr/share/licenses/sgx-common/licenses/external/dcap_source/tools/SGXPlatformRegistration/inf/MPA_Network_Components/License.txt Not desirable to change, because while they may currently have matching text, this can change on new releases. sgx-enclave-devel.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/sgx_edger8r Valid, but harmless in this context, so won't change
Refreshed again: Spec URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx.spec SRPM URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sgx/linux-sgx-2.25-1.fc43.src.rpm
This one looks good now. FYI I believe that macro-in-comment *is* actually a problem, if the macro contains multiple lines (which these obviously don't).
** This package is APPROVED for Fedora by rjones **
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/linux-sgx