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

Graal CI workflow #166

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025
Merged

Graal CI workflow #166

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

r1viollet
Copy link
Collaborator

@r1viollet r1viollet commented Jan 8, 2025

What does this PR do?:

This adds a graalVM workflow

Motivation:

Additional Notes:

This does not test the Ahead of Time / Native image workflow.

How to test the change?:

For Datadog employees:

  • If this PR touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages, or handles
    credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from @DataDog/security-design-and-guidance.
  • This PR doesn't touch any of that.
  • JIRA: PROF-11096

Unsure? Have a question? Request a review!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 8, 2025

🔧 Report generated by pr-comment-scanbuild

Scan-Build Report

User:runner@fv-az1046-344
Working Directory:/home/runner/work/java-profiler/java-profiler/ddprof-lib/src/test/make
Command Line:make -j4 clean all
Clang Version:Ubuntu clang version 18.1.3 (1ubuntu1)
Date:Wed Jan 8 12:17:13 2025

Bug Summary

Bug TypeQuantityDisplay?
All Bugs5
Logic error
Dereference of null pointer3
Suspicious operation
Bitwise shift1
Unused code
Dead nested assignment1

Reports

Bug Group Bug Type ▾ File Function/Method Line Path Length
Suspicious operationBitwise shiftvmStructs.cppfind87216
Unused codeDead nested assignmentvmStructs.cppcheckNativeBinding9771
Logic errorDereference of null pointersafeAccess.hload3318
Logic errorDereference of null pointersymbols_linux.hElfParser12928
Logic errorDereference of null pointerflightRecorder.cppflush15048

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 8, 2025

🔧 Report generated by pr-comment-cppcheck

CppCheck Report

Warnings (7)

Style Violations (403)

@r1viollet r1viollet force-pushed the r1viollet/graal_vm_tests branch from a3039cf to 37feea1 Compare January 8, 2025 10:59
- name: Setup OS
run: apk update && apk add curl moreutils wget hexdump linux-headers bash make g++ clang git cppcheck jq cmake gtest-dev gmock tar >/dev/null
- name: Prepare build JDK
uses: actions/setup-java@v3
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟠 Code Vulnerability

Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)

When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).

No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.

Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.

Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.

View in Datadog  Leave us feedback  Documentation

@r1viollet r1viollet force-pushed the r1viollet/graal_vm_tests branch from 37feea1 to 7ed8ca2 Compare January 8, 2025 11:10
@r1viollet r1viollet force-pushed the r1viollet/graal_vm_tests branch from 7ed8ca2 to f180fee Compare January 8, 2025 11:13
@r1viollet r1viollet force-pushed the r1viollet/graal_vm_tests branch from ad96f68 to c2f42dd Compare January 8, 2025 12:08
@r1viollet r1viollet changed the title WIP - Graal CI job Graal CI workflow Jan 8, 2025
@r1viollet r1viollet marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2025 12:26
@MattAlp
Copy link
Contributor

MattAlp commented Jan 8, 2025

What do we want to test via the non-native Graal workflow, at the moment?

@MattAlp MattAlp self-requested a review January 8, 2025 13:25
@r1viollet
Copy link
Collaborator Author

What do we want to test via the non-native Graal workflow, at the moment?

I am not sure how different the distributions would be and how valuable it is to add these workflows. I am adding these to make sure that the basic APIs we rely on are available and that no crashes are detected.

If we want to run these at a different frequency, happy to discuss a different proposal.

@jbachorik
Copy link
Collaborator

GraalVM JIT would be good to have at least like a sanity test of the different JIT compiler

@r1viollet r1viollet merged commit 21d2fe4 into main Jan 9, 2025
44 checks passed
@r1viollet
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Merged: please reach out if you feel like these should be further adjusted.

@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 1.19.0 milestone Jan 9, 2025
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants