Commit 6d40a1a
MarcoFalke
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26694: test:
dc12f2e test: improve error msg on previous release tarball extraction failure (kdmukai)
7121fd8 test: self-sign previous release binaries for arm64 macOS (kdmukai)
Pull request description:
## The Problem
If you run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b` on an M1 or M2 mac, you'll get an unsigned v23.0 binary in the arm64 tarball. macOS [sets stricter requirements on ARM binaries](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996578) so the unsigned arm64 binary is apparently completely unusable without being signed/notarized(?).
This means that any test that depends on a previous release (e.g. `wallet_backwards_compatibility.py`) will fail because the v23.0 node cannot launch:
```
TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/Users/kdmukai/dev/bitcoin-core/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 563, in start_nodes
node.wait_for_rpc_connection()
File "/Users/kdmukai/dev/bitcoin-core/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py", line 231, in wait_for_rpc_connection
raise FailedToStartError(self._node_msg(
test_framework.test_node.FailedToStartError: [node 2] bitcoind exited with status -9 during initialization
```
This can also be confirmed by downloading bitcoin-23.0-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz (https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-23.0/) and trying to run any of the binaries manually on an M1 or M2 mac.
## Solution in this PR
(UPDATED) Per @ hebasto, we can self-sign the arm64 binaries. This PR checks each binary in the previous release's "bin/" and verifies if the arm64 binary is signed. If not, attempt to self-sign and confirm success.
(note: an earlier version of this PR downloaded the x86_64 binary as a workaround but this approach has been discarded)
## Longer term solution
If possible, produce signed arm64 binaries in a future v23.x tarball?
Note that this same problem affects the new v24.0.1 arm64 tarball so perhaps a signed v24.x.x tarball would also be ideal?
That being said, this PR will check all current and future arm64 binaries and self-sign as needed, so perhaps we need not worry about pre-signing the tarball binaries. And I did test a version of `get_previous_releases.py` that includes the new v24.0.1 binaries and it successfully self-signed both v23.0 and v24.0.1, as expected.
## Further info:
Somewhat related to: bitcoin/bitcoin#15774 (comment)
And @ fanquake noted on IRC that you can confirm which binaries are or are not signed via:
```
$ codesign -v -d bitcoin-qt
bitcoin-qt: code object is not signed at all
```
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK dc12f2e
Tree-SHA512: 644895f8e97f5ffb3c4754c1db2c48abd77fa100c2058e3c896af04806596fc2b9c807a3f3a2add5be53301ad40ca2b8171585bd254e691f6eb38714d938396bget_previous_releases.py: M1/M2 macs can't run unsigned arm64 binaries; self-sign when needed1 file changed
+30
-1
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
148 | 148 | | |
149 | 149 | | |
150 | 150 | | |
151 | | - | |
| 151 | + | |
| 152 | + | |
152 | 153 | | |
153 | 154 | | |
154 | 155 | | |
| 156 | + | |
| 157 | + | |
| 158 | + | |
| 159 | + | |
| 160 | + | |
| 161 | + | |
| 162 | + | |
| 163 | + | |
| 164 | + | |
| 165 | + | |
| 166 | + | |
| 167 | + | |
| 168 | + | |
| 169 | + | |
| 170 | + | |
| 171 | + | |
| 172 | + | |
| 173 | + | |
| 174 | + | |
| 175 | + | |
| 176 | + | |
| 177 | + | |
| 178 | + | |
| 179 | + | |
| 180 | + | |
| 181 | + | |
| 182 | + | |
| 183 | + | |
155 | 184 | | |
156 | 185 | | |
157 | 186 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments