JDK-8310321: make JDKOPT_CHECK_CODESIGN_PARAMS more verbose

[MBaesken]

We were running into some issues with the configure checks checking the codesign tool. Unfortunately the output is a bit limited and should be enhanced, especially printing what is really called.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8310321: make JDKOPT_CHECK_CODESIGN_PARAMS more verbose (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Erik Joelsson (@erikj79 - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14541/head:pull/14541
$ git checkout pull/14541

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/14541
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14541/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 14541

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 14541

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14541.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back mbaesken! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[MBaesken]

A related question, maybe someone has seen this ; we get

configure:150634: calling /usr/bin/codesign -s - /open_jdk/build_dir/configure-support/codesign-testfile
/open_jdk/build_dir/configure-support/codesign-testfile: Operation not permitted
configure:150640: checking if debug mode codesign is possible
configure:150646: result: no

In the checking code (this is already with enhanced output).
Has someone seen the same 'operation not permitted' output and was able to fix this ?

[openjdk]

@MBaesken The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• build

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (21f737aa)
• 00: Full (71bde1aa)

[erikj79]

I don't think we should print that command line all the time. I think it would be better to echo the command line into config.log using AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD.

[MBaesken]

Hi Erik, the added codesign tool calls are already printed into the rather verbose config.log.
In the main configure output we see only what we saw before

checking for macosx code signing mode... auto, default
checking for macosx code signing identity... openjdk_codesign, default
checking if codesign with hardened runtime is possible... no
checking if debug mode codesign is possible... no
checking for macosx code signing mode... disabled

[erikj79]

Hi Erik, the added codesign tool calls are already printed into the rather verbose config.log. In the main configure output we see only what we saw before

checking for macosx code signing mode... auto, default checking for macosx code signing identity... openjdk_codesign, default checking if codesign with hardened runtime is possible... no checking if debug mode codesign is possible... no checking for macosx code signing mode... disabled

With your patch, configure.log and my console has this output:

checking for macosx code signing identity... openjdk_codesign, default
configure: check codesign, calling /usr/bin/codesign -s - /Users/erik/dev/jdk/build/macosx-aarch64-debug/configure-support/codesign-testfile
checking if debug mode codesign is possible... yes
checking for macosx code signing mode... debug

I think printing the command line used to probe codesign fits in config.log but not in the console output. This is the model used by the builtin macros in autoconf, such as probing for compiler flags. You can achieve this by something like:

echo $CODESIGN $PARAMS $CODESIGN_TESTFILE > $AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD

[MBaesken]

Hi Erik, I agree that logging this to config.log is sufficient. I am not sure why this looked different on my setup.
I adjusted the output.

[openjdk]

@MBaesken This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8310321: make JDKOPT_CHECK_CODESIGN_PARAMS more verbose

Reviewed-by: erikj

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 14 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 4a9cc8a: 8309266: C2: assert(final_con == (jlong)final_int) failed: final value should be integer
• 4e4e586: 8310194: Generational ZGC: Lock-order asserts in JVMTI IterateThroughHeap
• e1906e7: 8310027: Fix -Wconversion warnings in nmethod and compiledMethod related code
• 4ca548f: 8310326: Incorrect position of the synthetic unnamed class
• a059576: 8310187: Improve Generational ZGC jtreg testing
• 9a68ec8: 8219357: G1: G1GCPhaseTimes::debug_phase uses unnecessary ResourceMark
• 0878872: 8310020: MacroAssembler::call_VM(_leaf) doesn't consistently check for conflict with C calling convention.
• 79069c5: 8310314: Misplaced "unnamed classes are a preview feature and are disabled by default" error
• 96a7db7: 8309228: Clarify EXPERIMENTAL flags comment in hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp
• b2e86ae: 8304478: Initial nroff manpage generation for JDK 22
• ... and 4 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f8f8bfbea15de0a57415ba27ad5722b6a4add07a...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[MBaesken]

Hi Erik, thanks for the review !

[MBaesken]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 9eed049.
Since your change was applied there have been 25 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 3faba07: 8307145: windowsaccessbridge.dll erroneously includes private methods in its C API
• 886ac1c: 8308606: C2 SuperWord: remove alignment checks when not required
• 47d00a4: 8310265: (process) jspawnhelper should not use argv[0]
• e022e87: 8310053: VarHandle and slice handle derived from layout are lacking alignment check
• 45eaf5e: 8298443: Remove expired flags in JDK 22
• 28415ad: 8310225: Reduce inclusion of oopMapCache.hpp and generateOopMap.hpp
• 4c3efb3: 8309034: NoClassDefFoundError when initializing Long$LongCache
• 1120106: 8310458: Fix build failure caused by JDK-8310049
• 09174e0: 8310049: Refactor Charset tests to use JUnit
• 99d2a9a: 8310330: HttpClient: debugging interestOps/readyOps could cause exceptions and smaller cleanup
• ... and 15 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f8f8bfbea15de0a57415ba27ad5722b6a4add07a...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@MBaesken Pushed as commit 9eed049.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.