Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1207107 > unrolled thread

Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible) "Chris Lamb" <lamby@debian.org> - 2024-08-05 14:50 +0200
    Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible) Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> - 2024-08-05 21:50 +0200
      Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible) Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> - 2024-08-07 00:00 +0200
        Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible) Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> - 2024-08-07 00:20 +0200
        Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible) Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> - 2024-08-07 04:10 +0200
          Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible) Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> - 2024-08-07 22:30 +0200

#1207107 — Bug#970278: marked as done (smartlist: please make the build reproducible)

Santiago Vila wrote:

>> smartlist looks reproducible now
>
> Only on amd64, arm64 and i386.

Ah, I didn't spot that. Unfortunately, I don't have armhf hardware to
hand, but perhaps Vagrant can help narrow this down a little.


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207162

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-08-05, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>>> smartlist looks reproducible now
>>
>> Only on amd64, arm64 and i386.
>
> Ah, I didn't spot that. Unfortunately, I don't have armhf hardware to
> hand, but perhaps Vagrant can help narrow this down a little.

I was not able to reproduce the issue in my test setup, though our test
infrastructure has consistently been showing unreproducibility since
2020-09-24 on armhf.

I think the original reported issue is definitely fixed, but there is
some other outstanding issue with armhf specifically...

My hunch is differing kernel, as some of the armhf builds run with an
arm64 kernel and some with a regular armhf kernel... I will try to do
some more involved tests to verify if that is the issue.

The i386 builds used to also have a 32-bit and 64-bit kernel variation,
but some time ago they were switched to only build with a 64-bit kernel,
which might explain why this used to also be an issue on i386, but not
longer appears to be.

live well,
  vagrant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207339

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-08-05, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2024-08-05, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Santiago Vila wrote:
>>
>>>> smartlist looks reproducible now
>>>
>>> Only on amd64, arm64 and i386.
>>
>> Ah, I didn't spot that. Unfortunately, I don't have armhf hardware to
>> hand, but perhaps Vagrant can help narrow this down a little.
>
> I was not able to reproduce the issue in my test setup, though our test
> infrastructure has consistently been showing unreproducibility since
> 2020-09-24 on armhf.
>
> I think the original reported issue is definitely fixed, but there is
> some other outstanding issue with armhf specifically...
>
> My hunch is differing kernel, as some of the armhf builds run with an
> arm64 kernel and some with a regular armhf kernel... I will try to do
> some more involved tests to verify if that is the issue.

Well, I was able to reproduce a difference running one build with an
arm64 kernel one with an armhf kernel, but have not identified exactly
what triggers the difference...

It is not embedded kernel *version*, as that actually does vary on the
amd64 tests.reproducible-builds.org infrastructure where it is
consistently reproducible.

I suspect there is some architecture-specific kernel-dependent
difference.

On second look, I am noticing the diffoscope differences include some
references to __time64@plt ...

live well,
  vagrant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207350

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-08-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> My hunch is differing kernel, as some of the armhf builds run with an
>> arm64 kernel and some with a regular armhf kernel... I will try to do
>> some more involved tests to verify if that is the issue.
>
> Well, I was able to reproduce a difference running one build with an
> arm64 kernel one with an armhf kernel, but have not identified exactly
> what triggers the difference...
...
> I suspect there is some architecture-specific kernel-dependent
> difference.

Running the build under linux32 with an arm64 kernel does not work
around the issue... still ends up being different from a build performed
with an armhf kernel.

live well,
  vagrant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207361

El 6/8/24 a las 23:52, Vagrant Cascadian escribió:
> Well, I was able to reproduce a difference running one build with an
> arm64 kernel one with an armhf kernel, but have not identified exactly
> what triggers the difference...

Thanks for testing! So, if I understood, the variable which makes the build
to be different is the kernel, is this right?

Since you can reproduce the difference, can you test the branch
I've just set as default here, called wip-202408-reproducible?

https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/smartlist-not-yet/

Ideally, I'd like to reproduce this myself, but I only have access
to "pure" arm64 systems on which I can put an armhf chroot.
Is it too difficult to cross-grade it to a "native" armhf system?

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207504

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-08-07, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 6/8/24 a las 23:52, Vagrant Cascadian escribió:
>> Well, I was able to reproduce a difference running one build with an
>> arm64 kernel one with an armhf kernel, but have not identified exactly
>> what triggers the difference...
>
> Thanks for testing! So, if I understood, the variable which makes the build
> to be different is the kernel, is this right?
>
> Since you can reproduce the difference, can you test the branch
> I've just set as default here, called wip-202408-reproducible?
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/smartlist-not-yet/

That patch did not fix the underlying issue.

> Ideally, I'd like to reproduce this myself, but I only have access
> to "pure" arm64 systems on which I can put an armhf chroot.
> Is it too difficult to cross-grade it to a "native" armhf system?

The userland is easy enough with multi-arch, but to use arm64 hardware
with a 32-bit kernel you need a kernel built for that hardware... which
is an uncommon configuration. Raspberry PI tends to have such kernels,
though I think they are not typically built in Debian proper.

At the moment, I am building each test build on different hardware, one
natively 32-bit and one running in a 32-bit armhf chroot with the host
system running a 64-bit kernel (which is similar to the
tests.reproducible-builds.org infrastructure).

I forget if the official Debian buildd infrastructure has a mix of
64-bit and 32-bit hardware... it may have moved to only 64-bit hardware
with 32-bit chroots.

live well,
  vagrant

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web