Sat Apr 27 14:26:26 2019: Request 129312 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by philk...@kime.org.uk
Queue: PAR-Packer
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #129312] Code signing for OSX
Broken in: (no value)
Severity: (no value)
Owner: Nobody
Requestors: phi...@kime.org.uk
Status: open
Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=129312 >
I now have an OSX C program which which I can contribute which fixes the two
issues preventing code signing. It only works with 64-bit non-fat Mach-O
binaries but since, I believe, this is what is allowed by Apple for
distributions that uses code-signing, I don’t see a problem with this. I can
generalise it if necessary. See sample output:
> codesign -v -s "Code Signing Test" --force --timestamp --options=runtime
> ppbinary
ppbinary: main executable failed strict validation
> pp_codesign_fix ppbinary
Correcting __LINKEDIT
Old File Size: 5836
New File Size: 17888447
Old VM Size: 8192
New VM Size: 17888447
Correcting LC_SYMTAB
Old String Table Size: 1848
New String Table Size: 17884459
> codesign -v -s "Code Signing Test" --force --timestamp --options=runtime
> ppbinary
ppbinary: signed Mach-O thin (x86_64) [ppbinary]
However, the signed binary is broken for PAR:
> ./ppbinary
format error: can't find EOCD signature
at /loader/HASH(0x7fb593093028)/Archive/Zip/Archive.pm line 723.
Archive::Zip::Archive::_findEndOfCentralDirectory(Archive::Zip::Archive=HASH(0x7fb593801888),
IO::File=GLOB(0x7fb593511598)) called at
/loader/HASH(0x7fb593093028)/Archive/Zip/Archive.pm line 596
Archive::Zip::Archive::readFromFileHandle(Archive::Zip::Archive=HASH(0x7fb593801888),
IO::File=GLOB(0x7fb593511598), "/Users/philkime/Desktop/NB/./ppbinary") called
at -e line 373
eval {...} called at -e line 41
__par_pl::BEGIN() called at -e line 614
eval {...} called at -e line 614
: at -e line 373.
Compare the file sizes before and after codesigning:
BEFORE: 21107903
AFTER: 21291136
Difference is ~180K which is all appended after the PAR signature.
Can Mr Schupp or someone familiar with this comment on whether this looks like
the 128K PAR signature limit needs to be relaxed further or is this a different
problem?
