From: Harald Seiler <hws@denx.de>
To: Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
isar-users@googlegroups.com, Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] image: Run copy_boot_files after rootfs postprocessing
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:13:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dff034ea718d8f443c772a6a45e2a0f8398dbcea.camel@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200625212715.692fda49@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net>
Hello Henning,
On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 21:27 +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:23:54 +0200
> schrieb "[ext] Henning Schild" <henning.schild@siemens.com>:
>
> > Am Thu, 25 Jun 2020 20:43:07 +0200
> > schrieb "[ext] Henning Schild" <henning.schild@siemens.com>:
> >
> > > Am Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:24:30 +0200
> > > schrieb Harald Seiler <hws@denx.de>:
> > >
> > > > Hello Henning,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 19:02 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > > On 25.06.20 18:48, [ext] Henning Schild wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Harald,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > can you elaborate on those cases? The postprocessing is hacky,
> > > > > > if the problem is coming from your layer you should probably
> > > > > > keep this patch in you layer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically do_generate_image_uuid from
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/cip-dev/20200625141015.31719-4-Quirin.Gylstorff@siemens.com/T/#u,
> > > > > just modeled as post-processing hook, rather than a task.
> > > >
> > > > For reference, this is the exact code:
> > > >
> > > > ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND =+
> > > > "image_postprocess_generate_uuid"
> > > > image_postprocess_generate_uuid() { sudo sed -i
> > > > '/^IMAGE_UUID=.*/d' '${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/etc/os-release' echo
> > > > "IMAGE_UUID=\"${IMAGE_UUID}\"" | \ sudo tee -a
> > > > '${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/etc/os-release'
> > > >
> > > > sudo -E chroot '${ROOTFSDIR}' \
> > > > update-initramfs -u
> > > > }
> > >
> > > If /etc/os-release goes into the initrd we have the issue with
> > > image_postprocess_mark in isar, a valid reason for a merge.
It does not. The reason /etc/os-release and the initramfs become related
here is because the IMAGE_UUID from the rootfs needs to be added into the
initramfs so it can later identify the rootfs it belongs to (when multiple
copies exist). This is done by a separate initramfs hook installed as
a package.
> > But that is not the case. You re-create the initrd in your layer so it
> > might just be your problem! How about we discuss the IMAGE_UUID
> > upstream together with the reordering?
>
> Or do we need the "update-initramfs -u" for image_postprocess_mark?
No, as described above, this is only necessary for IMAGE_UUID because
there, a hook copies the IMAGE_UUID into the initramfs. The rest of
/etc/os-release is irrelevant for initrd (AFAIK).
> If so that should be done as a patch in this queue, you will get your
> reordering for IMAGE_UUID in your layer if you decide to keep that
> downstream.
I don't know what the plan is; whether IMAGE_UUID should be upstreamed at
some point. Jan, you're probably the person to ask here? From my side,
I think this would be a useful feature to have.
> Henning
>
> > Henning
> >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe you can point out an issue in isar itself, or explain
> > > > > > how you got into this situation? We can then see if your
> > > > > > change is generic enough for upstream. You could also provide
> > > > > > the error-case from your layer as an upstream feature, if
> > > > > > that is generic enough.
> > > >
> > > > I think this patch addresses an issue in isar itself. There is no
> > > > reason for copy_boot_files() to run before the postprocessing
> > > > does. I've checked through the git history and the reason this
> > > > relationship was introduced was a bigger refactor of the task
> > > > dependency chain. It does not seem to be intentionally this way
> > > > from what I can tell.
> > >
> > > Ok, sounds fair.
In the other thread, Claudius has shed some light on the design decisions
that let to this. But let's keep that discussion over there.
> > > > The other way around makes more sense, in my opinion. As stated
> > > > in the commit message, postprocessing might do an update to the
> > > > initramfs (as seen above) and this change needs to be reflected in
> > > > the deployed initramfs as well, instead of silently only living in
> > > > the version that is part of the rootfs.
> > > >
> > > > I also checked all existing postprocessing commands and did not
> > > > see any that assume to be run after the boot files have been
> > > > deployed.
> > >
> > > I just worried about people abusing postprocess for changes that
> > > should be packages instead. Thanks for going into detail!
If you have a better approach than what I came up with, please do tell!
I decided on postprocessing for a few reasons:
- The IMAGE_UUID is an 'image feature' as in, the image recipe should
decide what its ID is (an image inheriting `image_uuid` can set the ID
string). So pushing that into a package is difficult.
- As this only adds a value to /etc/os-release instead of deploying the
whole file, a package approach would need to work via postinst which
seems like a hack to me.
- The previous approach from Quirin was to add a separate task for adding
the UUID. This task can then be placed in the dependency chain where
I have now moved the postprocessing but this feels like duplicated work
when a postprocessing task exists as a feature already.
--
Harald
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-62 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: hws@denx.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-26 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-25 15:33 Harald Seiler
2020-06-25 16:48 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-25 17:02 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-06-25 17:24 ` Harald Seiler
2020-06-25 18:43 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-25 19:23 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-25 19:27 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-26 8:13 ` Harald Seiler [this message]
2020-06-26 8:19 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-06-26 8:26 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-26 8:44 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-06-26 9:15 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-26 7:17 ` Claudius Heine
2020-06-26 8:02 ` Harald Seiler
2020-06-26 9:12 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-06-29 9:04 ` Claudius Heine
2020-06-29 9:13 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-06-29 12:22 ` Harald Seiler
2020-06-29 12:41 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-06-29 12:55 ` Henning Schild
2020-06-29 13:25 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-07-01 8:29 ` Claudius Heine
2020-10-13 10:19 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-10-13 10:26 ` Harald Seiler
2020-10-13 10:35 ` Jan Kiszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=dff034ea718d8f443c772a6a45e2a0f8398dbcea.camel@denx.de \
--to=hws@denx.de \
--cc=ch@denx.de \
--cc=henning.schild@siemens.com \
--cc=isar-users@googlegroups.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox