The Ubuntu 24 builders have a newer GLIBC than is present on the
compiler-explorer machines:
https://github.com/compiler-explorer/compiler-explorer/issues/7636#issuecomment-2880962252.
This results in the following error when running Carbon nightly:
```
/opt/compiler-explorer/carbon-trunk/bin/carbon: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.38' not found (required by /opt/compiler-explorer/carbon-trunk/bin/carbon)
```
To resolve this, we need to build Carbon in a sysroot with a compatible
glibc version, and the most straightforward way to do that is to bump
our builders back down to Ubuntu 22.
To do that, we can't use apt.llvm.org again, since Ubuntu 22 is no
longer supported there. So we revert back to pulling a Linux X64 tarball
from the LLVM GitHub Releases page. Instead of getting an
ubuntu-specific tarball (which does not exist), we grab the generic
Linux one, which seems to work fine.
Note that the binaries in the LLVM release package appear to depend on
glibc version 2.34, as determined by `objdump -T bin/clang|grep GLIBC_|
sed 's/.*GLIBC_\([.0-9]*\).*/\1/g' | sort -Vu`, so these binaries should
hopefully be okay to package with the Carbon toolchain for the
compiler-explorer machines as well.
The version of clangd/clang-tidy on developer machines has slowly
diverged from the one on the CI builders, which is causing a slowly
increasing amount of pain as clang-tidy CI runs fail (incorrectly) over
things that a newer clangd/clang-tidy was perfectly fine with locally.
This bumps the Clang version used in the ubuntu builders to 19, which is
the most recent in Debian stable.
We use https://apt.llvm.org instead of LLVM's GitHub releases
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases) as the former more
reliably has packages for newer Clang/LLVM versions on x64. The
community-build releases binaries on LLVM's GitHub have stopped
including Ubuntu packages that match the GitHub x64 Ubuntu workers for
some time (for at least the 18 and 19 releases).
By moving to apt.llvm.org packages we only download and install the
headers and libraries needed for development, rather than every output
of building llvm, which is much faster and saves lots of disk space. We
also remove the system installations of other versions of clang/llvm so
we should end up using negative disk space. We can no longer easily
cache the installation but apt.llvm.org is a reliable end point.
We bump the ubuntu image version for the github workers to 24.04, as
apt.llvm.org has stopped building images for 22.10 in 2022 at its end of
life.
The `pre_commit` workflow disabled sudo unlike the other workflows that
install Clang/LLVM, including the `clang-tidy` workflow (which is also
run on `pull_request`). We bring it into alignment with the other
workflows so that we can install the llvm packages. And we lock its
ubuntu image to 24.04 so that it can be moved in lockstep with the other
workflows that depend on Clang/LLVM.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Came up due to [libc++ install
issues](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655577725347561492/1302023663155023905)
We've discussed clang version verification, and adding that as long as
I'm in here. The more significant bit is the libc++ check, which if it's
not installed should fail like:
```
(tons of output)
ignoring nonexistent directory "/include"
#include "..." search starts here:
#include <...> search starts here:
/usr/lib/llvm-16/lib/clang/16/include
/usr/local/include
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu
/usr/include
End of search list.
/usr/local/google/home/jperkins/.cache/bazel/_bazel_jperkins/85deb7d9d96f7e0e80b42618a55969d7/external/_main~clang_toolchain_extension~bazel_cc_toolchain/_temp:6:2: error: "No libc++ install found!"
#error "No libc++ install found!"
^
1 error generated.
ERROR: Analysis of target '//toolchain:toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed
INFO: Elapsed time: 0.265s, Critical Path: 0.08s
INFO: 1 process: 1 internal.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
```
pre-commit runs bazel, and GitHub runners have an old clang by default
(caught by the new check), so I'm installing here for a consistent
version.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Also a small pass on workflow names.
Note, I'm a little concerned that the test/nightly release/pre-commit
endpoints may be fragile. At the same time, it's also where it may be
most useful, to prevent network access by arbitrary test code. I think
this is imperfect, but maybe we can try it out and see if it's much of
an issue.
Note, the discord wiki action is currently broken, this should fix it.
This is coming out of advice from
https://securityscorecards.dev/viewer/?uri=github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
Updates action versions and pins by checksum. This is something we
already do in other places, and doing it with actions just seems
consistent.
Trying to add token permissions at the same time.
step-security/harden-runner is being set up to monitor network traffic
for actions, with the idea that we'd set it to block unexpected traffic
in the future.
Note, https://app.stepsecurity.io/secureworkflow generates the pinned
checksums and adds the harden-runner. In some cases it added token
permissions, but we have a couple it doesn't recognize (`gh` executions,
other custom commands, jlumbroso/free-disk-space, reviewdog/action-setup
as examples) so I'm trying to guess my best.
Because these are workflows, testing is limited.
This can't be done directly from a `pull_request` action, because that's
run without write privileges. This is done for security reasons, because
it runs in the context of the pull request branch. So instead, we
perform this in two steps:
- The `pull_request` action runs `pre-commit` and uploads an artifact
containing the diffs and the event information (which is only used to
extract the pull request number).
- A separate `workflow_run` action is triggered when the `pre-commit`
action finishes. This action is privileged, and should be able to
download the artifact and create corresponding suggestions.
Unfortunately, due to the permissions model in play here, the second
half of this appears to only be testable live in production.
For now, we're splitting the pre-commit action into two actions -- one
to run on PRs and one to run when actually merging commits -- so that
the suggestions are only triggered in the former case. It might be
possible to recombine these using data in the `workflow_run` invocation
to tell them apart, but the documentation here isn't very good so I've
made this PR dump out that event information so that we can look at it
and see if it contains the relevant information.
Dana Jansens
Richard Smith
Adrien Leravat