StrixOS/build
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge "releasetools: Use "ota-downgrade=yes" for --override_timestamp." into pi-dev

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
TreeHugger Robot
2018-05-21 17:04:09 +00:00
committed by Android (Google) Code Review
parent 826adbf0ed 2694249b02
commit 5c959195a0
2 changed files with 35 additions and 68 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

77
tools/releasetools/ota_from_target_files.py
View File

@@ -65,24 +65,29 @@ Usage: ota_from_target_files [flags] input_target_files output_ota_package
when installed.
--downgrade
Intentionally generate an incremental OTA that updates from a newer
build to an older one (based on timestamp comparison). "post-timestamp"
will be replaced by "ota-downgrade=yes" in the metadata file. A data
wipe will always be enforced, so "ota-wipe=yes" will also be included in
the metadata file. The update-binary in the source build will be used in
the OTA package, unless --binary flag is specified. Please also check the
doc for --override_timestamp below.
Intentionally generate an incremental OTA that updates from a newer build
to an older one (e.g. downgrading from P preview back to O MR1).
"ota-downgrade=yes" will be set in the package metadata file. A data wipe
will always be enforced when using this flag, so "ota-wipe=yes" will also
be included in the metadata file. The update-binary in the source build
will be used in the OTA package, unless --binary flag is specified. Please
also check the comment for --override_timestamp below.
--override_timestamp
Intentionally generate an incremental OTA that updates from a newer
build to an older one (based on timestamp comparison), by overriding the
timestamp in package metadata. This differs from --downgrade flag: we
know for sure this is NOT an actual downgrade case, but two builds are
cut in a reverse order. A legit use case is that we cut a new build C
(after having A and B), but want to enfore an update path of A -> C -> B.
Specifying --downgrade may not help since that would enforce a data wipe
for C -> B update. The value of "post-timestamp" will be set to the newer
timestamp plus one, so that the package can be pushed and applied.
Intentionally generate an incremental OTA that updates from a newer build
to an older one (based on timestamp comparison), by setting the downgrade
flag in the package metadata. This differs from --downgrade flag, as we
don't enforce a data wipe with this flag. Because we know for sure this is
NOT an actual downgrade case, but two builds happen to be cut in a reverse
order (e.g. from two branches). A legit use case is that we cut a new
build C (after having A and B), but want to enfore an update path of A ->
C -> B. Specifying --downgrade may not help since that would enforce a
data wipe for C -> B update.
We used to set a fake timestamp in the package metadata for this flow. But
now we consolidate the two cases (i.e. an actual downgrade, or a downgrade
based on timestamp) with the same "ota-downgrade=yes" flag, with the
difference being whether "ota-wipe=yes" is set.
-e (--extra_script) <file>
Insert the contents of file at the end of the update script.
@@ -180,7 +185,6 @@ OPTIONS.verify = False
OPTIONS.patch_threshold = 0.95
OPTIONS.wipe_user_data = False
OPTIONS.downgrade = False
OPTIONS.timestamp = False
OPTIONS.extra_script = None
OPTIONS.worker_threads = multiprocessing.cpu_count() // 2
if OPTIONS.worker_threads == 0:
@@ -898,23 +902,16 @@ def HandleDowngradeMetadata(metadata, target_info, source_info):
if OPTIONS.downgrade:
if not is_downgrade:
raise RuntimeError("--downgrade specified but no downgrade detected: "
"pre: %s, post: %s" % (pre_timestamp, post_timestamp))
raise RuntimeError(
"--downgrade or --override_timestamp specified but no downgrade "
"detected: pre: %s, post: %s" % (pre_timestamp, post_timestamp))
metadata["ota-downgrade"] = "yes"
elif OPTIONS.timestamp:
if not is_downgrade:
raise RuntimeError("--override_timestamp specified but no timestamp hack "
"needed: pre: %s, post: %s" % (pre_timestamp,
post_timestamp))
metadata["post-timestamp"] = str(long(pre_timestamp) + 1)
else:
if is_downgrade:
raise RuntimeError("Downgrade detected based on timestamp check: "
"pre: %s, post: %s. Need to specify "
"--override_timestamp OR --downgrade to allow "
"building the incremental." % (pre_timestamp,
post_timestamp))
metadata["post-timestamp"] = post_timestamp
raise RuntimeError(
"Downgrade detected based on timestamp check: pre: %s, post: %s. "
"Need to specify --override_timestamp OR --downgrade to allow "
"building the incremental." % (pre_timestamp, post_timestamp))
def GetPackageMetadata(target_info, source_info=None):
@@ -922,7 +919,7 @@ def GetPackageMetadata(target_info, source_info=None):
It generates a dict() that contains the info to be written into an OTA
package (META-INF/com/android/metadata). It also handles the detection of
downgrade / timestamp override / data wipe based on the global options.
downgrade / data wipe based on the global options.
Args:
target_info: The BuildInfo instance that holds the target build info.
@@ -963,11 +960,12 @@ def GetPackageMetadata(target_info, source_info=None):
else:
metadata['pre-device'] = target_info.device
# Detect downgrades, or fill in the post-timestamp.
# Use the actual post-timestamp, even for a downgrade case.
metadata['post-timestamp'] = target_info.GetBuildProp('ro.build.date.utc')
# Detect downgrades and set up downgrade flags accordingly.
if is_incremental:
HandleDowngradeMetadata(metadata, target_info, source_info)
else:
metadata['post-timestamp'] = target_info.GetBuildProp('ro.build.date.utc')
return metadata
@@ -1791,7 +1789,7 @@ def main(argv):
OPTIONS.downgrade = True
OPTIONS.wipe_user_data = True
elif o == "--override_timestamp":
OPTIONS.timestamp = True
OPTIONS.downgrade = True
elif o in ("-o", "--oem_settings"):
OPTIONS.oem_source = a.split(',')
elif o == "--oem_no_mount":
@@ -1869,19 +1867,12 @@ def main(argv):
sys.exit(1)
if OPTIONS.downgrade:
# Sanity check to enforce a data wipe.
if not OPTIONS.wipe_user_data:
raise ValueError("Cannot downgrade without a data wipe")
# We should only allow downgrading incrementals (as opposed to full).
# Otherwise the device may go back from arbitrary build with this full
# OTA package.
if OPTIONS.incremental_source is None:
raise ValueError("Cannot generate downgradable full OTAs")
assert not (OPTIONS.downgrade and OPTIONS.timestamp), \
"Cannot have --downgrade AND --override_timestamp both"
# Load the build info dicts from the zip directly or the extracted input
# directory. We don't need to unzip the entire target-files zips, because they
# won't be needed for A/B OTAs (brillo_update_payload does that on its own).

26
tools/releasetools/test_ota_from_target_files.py
View File

@@ -524,31 +524,7 @@ class OtaFromTargetFilesTest(unittest.TestCase):
'post-build-incremental' : 'build-version-incremental-target',
'post-sdk-level' : '27',
'post-security-patch-level' : '2017-12-01',
'pre-device' : 'product-device',
'pre-build' : 'build-fingerprint-source',
'pre-build-incremental' : 'build-version-incremental-source',
},
metadata)
def test_GetPackageMetadata_overrideTimestamp(self):
target_info_dict = copy.deepcopy(self.TEST_TARGET_INFO_DICT)
source_info_dict = copy.deepcopy(self.TEST_SOURCE_INFO_DICT)
self._test_GetPackageMetadata_swapBuildTimestamps(
target_info_dict, source_info_dict)
target_info = BuildInfo(target_info_dict, None)
source_info = BuildInfo(source_info_dict, None)
common.OPTIONS.incremental_source = ''
common.OPTIONS.timestamp = True
metadata = GetPackageMetadata(target_info, source_info)
self.assertDictEqual(
{
'ota-type' : 'BLOCK',
'post-build' : 'build-fingerprint-target',
'post-build-incremental' : 'build-version-incremental-target',
'post-sdk-level' : '27',
'post-security-patch-level' : '2017-12-01',
'post-timestamp' : '1500000001',
'post-timestamp' : '1400000000',
'pre-device' : 'product-device',
'pre-build' : 'build-fingerprint-source',
'pre-build-incremental' : 'build-version-incremental-source',