ensureExactContents shouldn't return immediately when it finds a match
from expected list of files.
Bug: 151491839
Test: m nothing
Merged-In: Ie15c811f9cfcae7ede28dee0fcf203cee24659a0
Change-Id: Ie15c811f9cfcae7ede28dee0fcf203cee24659a0
(cherry picked from commit e6436d7bf0)
Native modules within APEX should be linked with proper stub version
according to its min_sdk_version.
For example, when min_sdk_version is set to "29", libfoo in the apex
would be linked to libbar of version 29 from platform, even if it has
a newer version like 30.
Bug: 145796956
Test: m nothing (soong tests)
Merged-In: I4a0b2002587bc24b7deeb5d59b6eeba5e1db5b1f
Change-Id: I4a0b2002587bc24b7deeb5d59b6eeba5e1db5b1f
(cherry picked from commit 03b5185b88)
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: got ORV already.
When there is a runtime depedency (via runtime_libs property) to a
library providing stable C APIs, the dependency is considered as
crossing APEX boundary. Therefore, the requested lib doesn't need to be
made available to the APEX where the requesting lib is in.
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: cherry-pick from aosp, approved there.
Bug: 147813447
Test: m
Merged-In: I9cf8a5877850fb85b92c851e15fac921b8b7641b
(cherry picked from commit 323a4c3ab3)
Change-Id: I9cf8a5877850fb85b92c851e15fac921b8b7641b
Checking apex_available was missing some corner cases.
For example, the deps of share deps of cc_library modules are missed
while those from cc_library_shared are correctly tracked.
This was due to..
* calling DepIsInSameApex in WalkDeps: both work fine separately, but
when they are used together, it fails to work. It's due to how WalkDeps
works. (We might fix this bug too risky since it is used very widely)
* incorrect receiver for DepIsInSameApex in apex_deps mutator: receiver
is supposed to be parent, but child was used before. Interestingly lots
of deps are within the same group of module types(cc to cc, java to
java), it has worked. (note that receiver's DepIsInSameApex
implementation can be different).
This change fixes them by..
* walkPayloadDeps is now relying on ApexVariation, which is calculated
correctly by TopDown apex_deps mutator.
* use correct receiver for DepIsInSameApex in apex_deps mutator, which
requires for java.SdkLibrary to override the method and for
java.Library/Import to use passed dep instead of receiver to check its
membership of sdk.
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: cherry-pick from aosp/master
Bug: 151071238
Test: build/boot
Merged-In: I0569ef4bb8e79635e4d97a89f421a8d8b7d26456
(cherry picked from commit 5e9013be22)
Change-Id: I0569ef4bb8e79635e4d97a89f421a8d8b7d26456
When the check for apex_available has failed, the build system now shows
the module that brought the unavailable module into the APEX.
Bug: 151051671
Test: m
Change-Id: Id1a3fda67fe56fdc2dc90ec800d10689415de4d6
apex { name: "foo" }
override_apex { name: "override_foo", base:"foo" }
PRODUCT_MANIFEST_PACKAGE_NAME_OVERRIDES := foo:com.android.foo
Previously, the override was done only for the overridden package "foo",
but not for "override_foo". Fixing this issue by using ctx.ModuleName()
when finding the package name to use.
Bug: 150645663
Test: m
Change-Id: I2947e5c75369216a4bbce8749503236be86771c3
If an APEX contains APKs and the manifest package name of the APKs are
overridden (either via override_android_app
orPRODUCT_MANIFEST_PACKAGE_NAME_OVERRIDES), that the path to the APK
(relative in the APEX) and the overridden manifest package name is
recorded in the bundle config file.
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: cherry-pick from master
Bug: 148002117
Test: m
Merged-In: Ibb90bcefb77fa6b2dad77cb2facc6079de9ab154
(cherry picked from commit cfaa1643e8)
Change-Id: Ibb90bcefb77fa6b2dad77cb2facc6079de9ab154
bundle config file for apexes are auto-generated. It is included in the
<apex>-base.zip file, which is expected to be extracted and then fed
into the bundletool.
This change is in preparation for the upcoming change to include
information about embedded apks in the bundle confir file.
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: cherry-pick from master
Bug: 148002117
Test: m
Merged-In: If25d75e0f62036dc777faf8593ed8eb9a74950b0
(cherry picked from commit bd15961043)
Change-Id: If25d75e0f62036dc777faf8593ed8eb9a74950b0
Because APK-in-APEX embeds its jni_libs in it. We don't have to follow
deps of jni_libs.
Bug: 146992436
Test: m com.android.tethering
deapexer extract com.android.tethering.apex apex
ls apex # there should be no /lib dir
Merged-In: Ifa1a6430a420ae7376b155cd59b8ece462cced7e
Change-Id: Ifa1a6430a420ae7376b155cd59b8ece462cced7e
(cherry picked from commit b7bebe2616)
The optimization is confusing syshealth because the modules will use
more memory when they are switched to the prebuilt (unbundled) or
updated via Play.
Let's have a per-module switch to control the behavior and turn it on
only for non-updatable modules like ART.
Bug: 149805758
Test: m
Change-Id: Ieb842c47f31f3b06e403b1e1f9e463c3e5524107
This change fixes a regression that was introduced with
I597bccbb177b6b6320c3a3edeff467243230d384. With the change, the content
of the permissions XML file for a java_sdk_library was determined before
the java_sdk_library is mutated for an APEX. As a result, the file path
to the implementation jar library was always set to
/system/framework/*.jar regardless of whether the java_sdk_library is
part of an APEX or not.
This change fixes the problem, by creating the permissions XML file via
a new module type. The content of the xml file is determined after the
xml file is mutated for APEXes.
Bug: 149600642
Test: m
Change-Id: Id21f8d8285df49b0b3be1daf0f101f2bc978eeb0
Bug: 149075752
Test: tapas com.android.conscrypt com.android.tethering arm64
Test: m out/target/product/generic_arm64/{,symbols/}apex/com.android.{tethering,conscrypt}/lib64/libc++.so
Test: Verified that unwinder was dynamically linked to tethering's
Test: libc++ and statically linked to conscrypt's.
Test: lunch flame-userdebug && m
Test: Verified that unwinder was dynamically linked to /system/lib64/libc++.so
Change-Id: I98eed7cb4316962b19b5c12e150c224c25d0e91d
The apex dependency map wasn't updated for test or non-installable
APEXes to work around the problem that a module being in such APEX
prevented the module from being installed in the system partition.
Since that problem is not happening any more, removing the unnecessary
work-around.
Bug: 123892969
Test: m
Change-Id: I43e07a9611a3e08ff39b9a64454b1c67949d35bc
The APEX dependency is more correctly tracked. Previously, the
dependency was tracked while we gather modules that will be installed to
an APEX. This actually was incorrect because we skipped many dependency
types that we don't need to follow to gather the modules list, such as
the headers dependency.
Now, the dependency is tracked directly when a module is mutated for an
APEX. In other words, if a module is mutated for an apex X, then the
module will appear in the X-deps-into.txt file.
This change also changes the format of the txt file. It now clearly
shows why a module is included in the APEX by showing the list of
modules that depend on the module.
Bug: 146323213
Test: m
Change-Id: I0a70cf9cce56e36565f9d55683fdaace8748a081
Previously, a java_sdk_library called "SDKLIB" would create a
prebuilt_etc module called "SDKLIB.xml" which installs the generated
XML permission file to /etc/permissions/SDKLIB.xml. That module
depended on the java_sdk_library "SDKLIB" to generate the XML file
as one of its outputs by specifying srcs: [":SDKLIB{.xml}"].
If the java_sdk_library is replaced by a prebuilt then the SDKLIB.xml
module expects the prebuilt to provide the XML permissions file which
it doesn't because that is an implementation detail and so the build
breaks.
A couple of alternative approaches were looked at to fix this. One was
to have the logic that replaced the source module with the prebuilt to
inform the source module that it was being replaced so it could disable
its created module. That lead to a dependency cycle where
SDKLIB -> SDKLIB.xml -> SDKLIB{.xml}
Another solution was to mark dependency tags in such a way that the
prebuilt could automatically identify and disable the SDKLIB.xml
module. Similar to how the visibility code will ignore dependencies
that are tagged with ExcludeFromVisibilityEnforcementTag. That became
very convoluted.
Instead the java_sdk_library was changed so that it was not responsible
for creating the XML permissions file. Instead it created a genrule
called "gen-SDKLIB.xml" to create it and then "SDKLIB.xml" depended on
that. The java_sdk_library also depended on the genrule to make the XML
permissions file available for APEX and testing.
Some refactoring of the APEX code and tests was necessary because they
had knowledge of the internal implementation of java_sdk_library. The
refactoring insulates them a little better from those details.
Bug: 148080325
Test: m droid && TARGET_BUILD_APPS=Camera2 m
Change-Id: I597bccbb177b6b6320c3a3edeff467243230d384
This change fixes a bug that apex_available is not enforced for static
dependencies. For example, a module with 'apex_available:
["//apex_available:platform"]' was able to be statically linked to any
APEX. This was happening because the check was done on the modules that
are actually installed to an APEX. Static dependencies of the modules
were not counted as they are not installed to the APEX as files.
Fixing this bug by doing the check by traversing the tree in the method
checkApexAvailability.
This change includes a few number of related changes:
1) DepIsInSameApex implementation for cc.Module was changed as well.
Previuosly, it returned false only when the dependency is actually a
stub variant of a lib. Now, it returns false when the dependency has one
or more stub variants. To understand why, we need to recall that when
there is a dependency to a lib having stubs, we actually create two
dependencies: to the non-stub variant and to the stub variant during the
DepsMutator phase. And later in the build action generation phase, we
choose one of them depending on the context. Also recall that an APEX
variant is created only when DepIsInSameApex returns true. Given these,
with the previous implementatin of DepIsInSameApex, we did create apex
variants of the non-stub variant of the dependency, while not creating
the apex variant for the stub variant. This is not right; we needlessly
created the apex variant. The extra apex variant has caused no harm so
far, but since the apex_available check became more correct, it actually
breaks the build. To fix the issue, we stop creating the APEX variant
both for non-stub and stub variants.
2) platform variant is created regardless of the apex_available value.
This is required for the case when a library X that provides stub is in
an APEX A and is configured to be available only for A. In that case,
libs in other APEX can't use the stub library since the stub library is
mutated only for apex A. By creating the platform variant for the stub
library, it can be used from outside as the default dependency variation
is set to the platform variant when creating the APEX variations.
3) The ApexAvailableWhitelist is added with the dependencies that were
revealed with this change.
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: cherry-pick from internal
Bug: 147671264
Test: m
Merged-In: Iaedc05494085ff4e8af227a6392bdd0c338b8e6e
(cherry picked from commit fa89944c79)
Change-Id: Iaedc05494085ff4e8af227a6392bdd0c338b8e6e
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libfoo"],
apex_name: "apex_name",
}
override_apex {
name: "myapex.override",
base: "myapex"
}
Previsouly, above wasn't supported because both APEXes have the same
apex_name and that apex_name is used as the suffix of libfoo. i.e.,
there are two libfoo.apex_name modules defined.
Now, the two apex variants of libfoo are named as
libfoo.myapex and libfoo.myapex.override.
Bug: 140136207
Test: m
Change-Id: I63f8a1de463011c6e0b97f5f6eee83103e22bc30
apex module accepts PlatformCompatConfigIntf as prebuilt,
and places it in the etc folder of the apex.
Test: m
Test: flash device with dummy config in mediaprovider APEX -
the config is present
Change-Id: Ifc62cd262f6c6571c1bf6c2943879aa20877ecad
This reverts commit 5df3b11f78.
Reason for revert: re-land with a fix
Fix a broken soong test
Add implicit dependency (libprofile-clang-extra) to make a test pass.
Bug: n/a
Test: m
Change-Id: I0b179199bc032501354f8e24782837453781bd8c
VNDK APEX is supposed to contain "vendor" variants of VNDK libraries.
This is different from normal APEXes which have "apex" variants.
Bug: 146758869
Test: build / flash / boot
Change-Id: I5e035678c337334092616b58d2e0e404788a6639
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: Got ORV, but rebased with resolving merge conflicts.
This reverts commit 31c65d4fe4.
Bug: 144533348
Test: checkout master-art-host and run
ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true DIST_DIR=out/dist /art/tools/dist_linux_bionic.sh -j80 com.android.art.host
the result is successful
Change-Id: Ica11eec9b64867088b16720a41c6d83905976ec5
This means everything that goes into apexes need to be
explicitly labeled to be available for apex.
Whitelist the current offenders. This list should be
trimmed down.
Bug: 147364041
Test: m
Test: multiproduct_kati -only-soong
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: cherry-pick from internal
Change-Id: I837299c6a15d46f8a5ba544b613776b1cc27d7b8
Merged-In: I837299c6a15d46f8a5ba544b613776b1cc27d7b8
(cherry picked from commit 93488cbb10d4882845abb732f8e53714f0982031)
For post-Q modules, we can avoid building the hashtree also in the
unbundled build case, since the device will regenerate the hashtree
locally. This CL simplifies the logic so that the build rules apply
regardless of the build being bundled or unbundled -- after all, bundled
build are only really valid for development purposes.
Fix: 147600151
Test: unit test;
m com.android.conscrypt and manual inspection of apexer invocation
(option no_hashtree not present)
m com.android.neuralnetworks and manual inspection of apexer invocation
(option no_hashtree present)
Change-Id: Ib4cc6149d3beac5df7e23a65a3b7ee6b0d68e395
This reverts commit 7cb4d378e7.
Test: m
Test: ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true DIST_DIR=out/dist ./art/tools/dist_linux_bionic.sh -j80 com.android.art.host
(in the master-art-host branch)
Change-Id: I9beca73aafdf42f03bfa19cf1634b2641dac417b
This reverts commit 956305c61c.
Reason for revert: broke master-art-host branch
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: reverting a bad change
Change-Id: Id7faed4ee85328c7c65847a3543ea9e67a3d50b3
When a module is included in an APEX and the module is not directly
installed to the system partition, the 'required' property of the module
is lost. The APEX containing the module now carries the property from
its dependencies.
Bug: 146549048
Test: m
Change-Id: Ie21cc7b8420c6126c855e66c2363644de4a7ef42
We need to have a way to see the list of modules that directly or
indirectly contribute to an APEX. People find it difficult to determine
whether a module is included in which APEXes because APEX tracks
indirect dependencies as well as direct dependencies. Therefore, just
looking at Android.bp for the APEX itself doesn't give the answer.
This change adds a new make target <apex_name>-deps-info, which
generates out/soong/<apex_name>-deps-info.txt file that shows the
internal and external dependencies of the said APEX.
Here, internal means the dependencies are actually part of the
APEX, while external means the dependencies are still external to the
APEX.
Bug: 146323213
Test: m (apex_test amended)
Change-Id: I33d1ccf5d1ca335d71cd6ced0f5f66b8c3886d13
Some devices require VNDK using core library list, but this is dependent
to system image rather than VNDK version. This change removes VNDK using
core variant library list file from VNDK APEX, and also remove VNDK
version from its filename.
Bug: 142599349
Test: m -j passed && aosp_cf_x86_go_phone booted
Change-Id: Ibc53b8dfc9d38e14bbaa878154034d25a6d34089
Jooyung Han