Hello On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:04:22 +0200 Markus Lehtonen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > > On 17/02/16 17:41, "Ioan-Adrian Ratiu" > <[email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > >Implement local ipk signing logic inside the gpg backend and add a new > >bbclass which configures signing similar to how rpm does it. > > > >The ipk signing process is a bit different from rpm: > > - Signatures are stored outside ipk files; opkg connects to a feed > >server and downloads them to verify a package. > > - Signatures are of two types (both supported by opkg): binary or > >ascii armoured. By default we sign using ascii armoured. > > - Public keys are stored on targets to verify ipks using the > >opkg-keyrings recipe. > > > >Signed-off-by: Ioan-Adrian Ratiu <[email protected]> > >--- > > meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass | 6 +++++ > > meta/classes/sign_ipk.bbclass | 55 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 meta/classes/sign_ipk.bbclass > > > >diff --git a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > >b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > >index 51bee28..4f5bbd0 100644 > >--- a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > >+++ b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > >@@ -246,6 +246,12 @@ python do_package_ipk () { > > bb.utils.unlockfile(lf) > > raise bb.build.FuncFailed("opkg-build execution failed") > > > >+ if d.getVar('IPK_SIGN_PACKAGES', True) == '1': > >+ ipkver = "%s-%s" % (d.getVar('PKGV'), d.getVar('PKGR')) > >+ ipk_to_sign = "%s/%s_%s_%s.ipk" % (pkgoutdir, pkgname, ipkver, > >d.getVar('PACKAGE_ARCH', True)) > >+ d.setVar('IPK_TO_SIGN', ipk_to_sign) > >+ bb.build.exec_func("sign_ipk", d) > >+ > > cleanupcontrol(root) > > bb.utils.unlockfile(lf) > > > >diff --git a/meta/classes/sign_ipk.bbclass b/meta/classes/sign_ipk.bbclass > >new file mode 100644 > >index 0000000..cb22bb4 > >--- /dev/null > >+++ b/meta/classes/sign_ipk.bbclass > >@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ > >+# Class for generating signed IPK packages. > >+# > >+# Configuration variables used by this class: > >+# IPK_GPG_PASSPHRASE_FILE > >+# Path to a file containing the passphrase of the signing key. > >+# IPK_GPG_NAME > >+# Name of the key to sign with. > >+# IPK_GPG_BACKEND > >+# Optional variable for specifying the backend to use for signing. > >+# Currently the only available option is 'local', i.e. local > >signing > >+# on the build host. > >+# IPK_GPG_SIGNATURE_TYPE > >+# Optional variable for specifying the type of gpg signatures, > >can be: > >+# 1. Ascii armored (ASC), default if not set > >+# 2. Binary (BIN) > >+# GPG_BIN > >+# Optional variable for specifying the gpg binary/wrapper to use > >for > >+# signing. > >+# GPG_PATH > >+# Optional variable for specifying the gnupg "home" directory: > >+# > >+ > >+inherit sanity > >+ > >+IPK_SIGN_PACKAGES = '1' > >+IPK_GPG_BACKEND ?= 'local' > >+IPK_GPG_SIGNATURE_TYPE ?= 'ASC' > >+ > >+python () { > >+ # Check configuration > >+ for var in ('IPK_GPG_NAME', 'IPK_GPG_PASSPHRASE_FILE'): > >+ if not d.getVar(var, True): > >+ raise_sanity_error("You need to define %s in the config" % var, > >d) > >+ > >+ sigtype = d.getVar("IPK_GPG_SIGNATURE_TYPE", True) > >+ if sigtype.upper() != "ASC" and sigtype.upper() != "BIN": > >+ raise_sanity_error("Bad value for IPK_GPG_SIGNATURE_TYPE (%s), use > >either ASC or BIN" % sigtype) > >+} > >+ > >+python sign_ipk () { > >+ from oe.gpg_sign import get_signer > >+ > >+ ipk_file = d.getVar('IPK_TO_SIGN') > >+ bb.debug(1, 'Signing ipk: %s' % ipk_file) > >+ > >+ signer = get_signer(d, d.getVar('IPK_GPG_BACKEND', True)) > >+ > >+ sig_type = d.getVar('IPK_GPG_SIGNATURE_TYPE', True) > >+ is_ascii_sig = (sig_type.upper() != "BIN") > >+ > >+ signer.sign_ipk(ipk_file, > >+ d.getVar('IPK_GPG_NAME', True), > >+ d.getVar('IPK_GPG_PASSPHRASE_FILE', True), > >+ is_ascii_sig) > >+} > > To me, it would be seem more straightforward to not circulate ipk_to_sign > through 'd'. Just define a regular python function like > def sign_ipk(d, ipk_to_sign): > ... > > And then in package_ipk.bbclass just do "sign_ipk(d, ipk_to_sign)" instead of > bb.build.exec_func("sign_ipk", d)" > > > > > >diff --git a/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py b/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py > >index ada1b2f..138499b 100644 > >--- a/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py > >+++ b/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py > >@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > > """Helper module for GPG signing""" > > import os > >+import sys > > > > import bb > > import oe.utils > >@@ -50,6 +51,44 @@ class LocalSigner(object): > > bb.error('rpmsign failed: %s' % proc.before.strip()) > > raise bb.build.FuncFailed("Failed to sign RPM packages") > > > >+ def sign_ipk(self, ipkfile, keyid, passphrase_file, armor=True): > >+ """Sign IPK files""" > >+ import subprocess > >+ from subprocess import Popen > >+ > >+ cmd = [self.gpg_bin, "-q", "--batch", "--yes", "-b", "-u", keyid] > >+ if self.gpg_path: > >+ cmd += ["--homedir", self.gpg_path] > >+ if armor: > >+ cmd += ["--armor"] > >+ > >+ try: > >+ keypipe = os.pipe() > >+ > >+ # Need to add '\n' in case the passfile does not have it > >+ with open(passphrase_file) as fobj: > >+ os.write(keypipe[1], fobj.readline() + '\n') > >+ > >+ cmd += ["--passphrase-fd", str(keypipe[0])] > >+ cmd += [ipkfile] > >+ > >+ gpg_proc = Popen(cmd, stdin=subprocess.PIPE) > >+ gpg_proc.wait() > >+ > >+ os.close(keypipe[1]); > >+ os.close(keypipe[0]); > >+ > >+ except IOError as e: > >+ bb.error("IO error ({0}): {1}".format(e.errno, e.strerror)) > >+ raise bb.build.FuncFailed("Failed to sign IPK packages") > >+ except OSError as e: > >+ bb.error("OS error ({0}): {1}".format(e.errno, e.strerror)) > >+ raise bb.build.FuncFailed("Failed to sign IPK packages") > >+ except: > >+ bb.error("Unexpected error: {1}".format(sys.exc_info()[0])) > >+ raise bb.build.FuncFailed("Failed to sign IPK packages") > >+ > >+ > > def detach_sign(self, input_file, keyid, passphrase_file, > > passphrase=None, armor=True): > > """Create a detached signature of a file""" > > import subprocess > > Couldn't you just use detach_sign() instead of introducing sign_ipk(). To me > the functionality seems identical. The functionality is almost identical, yes, and consolidating it into one function is a very good idea. I'll do it but I have one question. The only diference between them is the usage in detach-sign of gpg's "--with-passphrase" arg, and that arg seems to cause some errors on my system: "gpg: signing failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device" I have not managed to reliably reproduce and find the cause of this issue. However, if we always open the file in python and read directly in a pipe which we always pass to gpg using "--passphrase-fd", the error goes away. Is using something like the following in detach_sign() ok with you? with open(passphrase_file) as fobj: os.write(keypipe[1], fobj.readline() + '\n') cmd += ["--passphrase-fd", str(keypipe[0])] > > > Thanks, > Markus > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
