[PATCH v2] classes/image-postproc: chroot before postprocessing /etc/machine-id

[alexander...@siemens.com]

From: Alexander Heinisch <alexander...@siemens.com>

If /etc/machine-id happens to be a link to e.g. /var/...
the postprocessing overrides build-hosts /var/... instead of
the desired file on the rootfs.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Heinisch <alexander...@siemens.com>
---
meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass b/meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass
index 991bac4c..b332e826 100644
--- a/meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ image_postprocess_machine_id() {
if dpkg --compare-versions "$SYSTEMD_VERSION" "lt" "247"; then
MACHINE_ID=""
fi
- echo "$MACHINE_ID" | sudo tee '${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/etc/machine-id'
+ echo "$MACHINE_ID" | sudo chroot ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} tee /etc/machine-id
sudo rm -f '${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/var/lib/dbus/machine-id'
}

--
2.39.5

[Heinisch, Alexander]

Any updates on this patch? Seems it got lost.

On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 11:28 +0200, alexander...@siemens.com
wrote:

Alexander Heinisch
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com

[cedric.h...@siemens.com]

On Tue, 2025-10-21 at 11:22 +0000, 'Heinisch, Alexander' via isar-users
wrote:

we could use the newly introduced rootfs_cmd to avoid a sudo call here.
reach out if you need some clarification on how to use rootfs_cmd

> >      sudo rm -f '${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/var/lib/dbus/machine-id'
> >  }
> >  
>
> --
> Alexander Heinisch
> Siemens AG
> www.siemens.com
>

--
Cedric Hombourger
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com

[cedric.h...@siemens.com]

Just to update everyone. Alexander and I discussed and concluded that
rootfs_cmd may not be used here since we require write access to a
root-owned file (rootfs_cmd is only an alternative to sudo chroot for
commands where we do not require elevated privileges)

[Zhihang Wei]

Hi,

The patch previously encountered an error during the full CI run. However,
this error cannot be reproduced after multiple runs on the CI server or
on my
local machine. We believe the issue is related to the CI itself rather than
the patch.

Since it seems that the next version (v3) is on the way, we’ll wait for it
before running CI again. If that’s not the case, please let me know.

Best regards,
Zhihang

[Heinisch, Alexander]

On Thu, 2025-10-23 at 18:02 +0200, Zhihang Wei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patch previously encountered an error during the full CI run.
> However,
> this error cannot be reproduced after multiple runs on the CI server
> or
> on my
> local machine. We believe the issue is related to the CI itself
> rather than
> the patch.
>
> Since it seems that the next version (v3) is on the way, we’ll wait
> for it
> before running CI again. If that’s not the case, please let me know.
>

All remarks of Cedric got resolved, without changes required.
Thus, as of now, no v3 is planned.

BR Alexander

[Zhihang Wei]

Applied to next, thanks.

Best regards,
Zhihang