| .. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK |
| |
| ******************* |
| Reproducible Builds |
| ******************* |
| |
| ================ |
| How we define it |
| ================ |
| |
| The Yocto Project defines reproducibility as where a given input build |
| configuration will give the same binary output regardless of when it is built |
| (now or in 5 years time), regardless of the path on the filesystem the build is |
| run in, and regardless of the distro and tools on the underlying host system the |
| build is running on. |
| |
| ============== |
| Why it matters |
| ============== |
| |
| The project aligns with the `Reproducible Builds project |
| <https://reproducible-builds.org/>`__, which shares information about why |
| reproducibility matters. The primary focus of the project is the ability to |
| detect security issues being introduced. However, from a Yocto Project |
| perspective, it is also hugely important that our builds are deterministic. When |
| you build a given input set of metadata, we expect you to get consistent output. |
| This has always been a key focus but, :yocto_docs:`since release 3.1 ("dunfell") |
| </ref-manual/migration-3.1.html#reproducible-builds-now-enabled-by-default>`, |
| it is now true down to the binary level including timestamps. |
| |
| For example, at some point in the future life of a product, you find that you |
| need to rebuild to add a security fix. If this happens, only the components that |
| have been modified should change at the binary level. This would lead to much |
| easier and clearer bounds on where validation is needed. |
| |
| This also gives an additional benefit to the project builds themselves, our |
| :ref:`overview-manual/concepts:Hash Equivalence` for |
| :ref:`overview-manual/concepts:Shared State` object reuse works much more |
| effectively when the binary output remains the same. |
| |
| .. note:: |
| |
| We strongly advise you to make sure your project builds reproducibly |
| before finalizing your production images. It would be too late if you |
| only address this issue when the first updates are required. |
| |
| =================== |
| How we implement it |
| =================== |
| |
| There are many different aspects to build reproducibility, but some particular |
| things we do within the build system to ensure reproducibility include: |
| |
| - Adding mappings to the compiler options to ensure debug filepaths are mapped |
| to consistent target compatible paths. This is done through the |
| :term:`DEBUG_PREFIX_MAP` variable which sets the ``-fmacro-prefix-map`` and |
| ``-fdebug-prefix-map`` compiler options correctly to map to target paths. |
| - Being explicit about recipe dependencies and their configuration (no floating |
| configure options or host dependencies creeping in). In particular this means |
| making sure :term:`PACKAGECONFIG` coverage covers configure options which may |
| otherwise try and auto-detect host dependencies. |
| - Using recipe specific sysroots to isolate recipes so they only see their |
| dependencies. These are visible as ``recipe-sysroot`` and |
| ``recipe-sysroot-native`` directories within the :term:`WORKDIR` of a given |
| recipe and are populated only with the dependencies a recipe has. |
| - Build images from a reduced package set: only packages from recipes the image |
| depends upon. |
| - Filtering the tools available from the host's ``PATH`` to only a specific set |
| of tools, set using the :term:`HOSTTOOLS` variable. |
| |
| .. note:: |
| |
| Because of an open bug in GCC, using ``DISTRO_FEATURES:append = " lto"`` or |
| adding ``-flto`` (Link Time Optimization) to ``CFLAGS`` makes the resulting |
| binary non-reproducible, in that it depends on the full absolute build path |
| to ``recipe-sysroot-native``, so installing the Yocto Project in a different |
| directory results in a different binary. |
| |
| This issue is addressed by |
| :yocto_bugs:`bug 14481 - Programs built with -flto are not reproducible</show_bug.cgi?id=14481>`. |
| |
| ========================================= |
| Can we prove the project is reproducible? |
| ========================================= |
| |
| Yes, we can prove it and we regularly test this on the Autobuilder. At the |
| time of writing (release 3.3, "hardknott"), :term:`OpenEmbedded-Core (OE-Core)` |
| is 100% reproducible for all its recipes (i.e. world builds) apart from the Go |
| language and Ruby documentation packages. Unfortunately, the current |
| implementation of the Go language has fundamental reproducibility problems as |
| it always depends upon the paths it is built in. |
| |
| .. note:: |
| |
| Only BitBake and :term:`OpenEmbedded-Core (OE-Core)`, which is the ``meta`` |
| layer in Poky, guarantee complete reproducibility. The moment you add |
| another layer, this warranty is voided, because of additional configuration |
| files, ``bbappend`` files, overridden classes, etc. |
| |
| To run our automated selftest, as we use in our CI on the Autobuilder, you can |
| run:: |
| |
| oe-selftest -r reproducible.ReproducibleTests.test_reproducible_builds |
| |
| This defaults to including a ``world`` build so, if other layers are added, it would |
| also run the tests for recipes in the additional layers. The first build will be |
| run using :ref:`Shared State <overview-manual/concepts:Shared State>` if |
| available, the second build explicitly disables |
| :ref:`Shared State <overview-manual/concepts:Shared State>` and builds on the |
| specific host the build is running on. This means we can test reproducibility |
| builds between different host distributions over time on the Autobuilder. |
| |
| If ``OEQA_DEBUGGING_SAVED_OUTPUT`` is set, any differing packages will be saved |
| here. The test is also able to run the ``diffoscope`` command on the output to |
| generate HTML files showing the differences between the packages, to aid |
| debugging. On the Autobuilder, these appear under |
| https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/repro-fail/ in the form ``oe-reproducible + |
| <date> + <random ID>``, e.g. ``oe-reproducible-20200202-1lm8o1th``. |
| |
| The project's current reproducibility status can be seen at |
| :yocto_home:`/reproducible-build-results/` |
| |
| You can also check the reproducibility status on supported host distributions: |
| |
| - CentOS: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-centos` |
| - Debian: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-debian` |
| - Fedora: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-fedora` |
| - Ubuntu: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-ubuntu` |
| |
| =============================== |
| Can I test my layer or recipes? |
| =============================== |
| |
| Once again, you can run a ``world`` test using the |
| :ref:`oe-selftest <ref-manual/release-process:Testing and Quality Assurance>` |
| command provided above. This functionality is implemented |
| in :oe_git:`meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/reproducible.py |
| </openembedded-core/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/reproducible.py>`. |
| |
| You could subclass the test and change ``targets`` to a different target. |
| |
| You may also change ``sstate_targets`` which would allow you to "pre-cache" some |
| set of recipes before the test, meaning they are excluded from reproducibility |
| testing. As a practical example, you could set ``sstate_targets`` to |
| ``core-image-sato``, then setting ``targets`` to ``core-image-sato-sdk`` would |
| run reproducibility tests only on the targets belonging only to ``core-image-sato-sdk``. |