Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Linux armv7 support #223

Open
orobio opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Linux armv7 support #223

orobio opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@orobio
Copy link

orobio commented Mar 15, 2024

On linux/armv7 some symbols are not properly prefixed. Building a project that includes both swift-nio-ssl and swift-crypto, results in the following conflicts:

ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: CRYPTO_poly1305_init_neon
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: CRYPTO_poly1305_update_neon
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: CRYPTO_poly1305_finish_neon
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: openssl_poly1305_neon2_blocks
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: openssl_poly1305_neon2_addmulmod
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: vpaes_encrypt_key_to_bsaes
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: vpaes_decrypt_key_to_bsaes
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: sha512_block_data_order_neon
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: sha256_block_data_order_neon
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: bsaes_cbc_encrypt
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: bsaes_ctr32_encrypt_blocks
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: x25519_NEON
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: CRYPTO_has_broken_NEON
ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: CRYPTO_needs_hwcap2_workaround

It looks like CCryptoBoringSSL_boringssl_prefix_symbols.h is generated by vendor-boringssl.sh by building BoringSSL for various architectures and gathering all symbols. There is no official linux/armv7 docker image yet, so at the moment we can't use the same method for adding these symbols, but would it be possible to create a temporary solution, for example by hardcoding these symbols? Or is there any proper solution that could work without requiring an official linux/armv7 docker?

@Lukasa
Copy link
Collaborator

Lukasa commented Mar 15, 2024

I'd be open to an unofficial docker image, but I don't think hardcoding the symbols themselves is going to work. Another option might be to produce a cross-compilation SDK that supports an armv7 toolchain, which we could then integrate. @MaxDesiatov might be able to help with that.

@MaxDesiatov
Copy link
Member

MaxDesiatov commented Mar 15, 2024

Swift SDKs can be generated from existing toolchains. Thus we need an armv7 toolchain first (for some Linux distribution, Docker images could work too) to run the generator on it.

@orobio
Copy link
Author

orobio commented Mar 16, 2024

We don't have a full toolchain for armv7, but we do have a cross-compiling toolchain (Swift 5.10). This was created with something based on the swift-armv7 repo. However, it is for our own Yocto based system. We can have a look at creating a container image with a cross-compiling toolchain for Debian. This should be usable with the vendor-boringssl.sh script. I guess it will not work well with the SDK generator, though.

@Lukasa
Copy link
Collaborator

Lukasa commented Mar 26, 2024

Ideally we'd have either a suitable docker container or a toolchain, I don't much mind. Either way we can add that to the build system once we're there.

@orobio
Copy link
Author

orobio commented Apr 2, 2024

A container seems like the best option for now. It fits right into the current set-up and takes away some unknowns regarding SDK creation, especially for us being unfamiliar with Swift on MacOS. I submitted a pull request with a container based solution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants