On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 16:51 -0500, Sid Spry wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 12:50 -0500, Sid Spry wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, at 2:28 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Dnia June 30, 2020 2:13:43 AM UTC, Sid Spry <s...@aeam.us> napisał(a): > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I have some runnable pseudocode outlining a faster tree verification > > > > > algorithm. > > > > > Before I create patches I'd like to see if there is any guidance on > > > > > making the > > > > > changes as unobtrusive as possible. If the radical change in algorithm > > > > > is > > > > > acceptable I can work on adding the changes. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of composing any kind of structured data out of the portage > > > > > tree my > > > > > algorithm just lists all files and then optionally batches them out to > > > > > threads. > > > > > There is a noticeable speedup by eliding the tree traversal operations > > > > > which > > > > > can be seen when running the algorithm with a single thread and > > > > > comparing it to > > > > > the current algorithm in gemato (which should still be discussed > > > > > here?). > > > > > > > > Without reading the code: does your algorithm correctly detect > > > > extraneous files? > > > > > > > > > > Yes and no. > > > > > > I am not sure why this is necessary. If the file does not appear in a > > > manifest it is > > > ignored. It makes the most sense to me to put the burden of not including > > > untracked files on the publisher. If the user puts an untracked file into > > > the tree it > > > will be ignored to no consequence; the authored files don't refer to it, > > > after all. > > > > This is necessary because a malicious third party can MITM you an rsync > > tree with extraneous files (say, -r1 baselayout ebuild) that do horrible > > things on your system. If you don't reject files not in Manifest, you > > open a huge security hole. > > > > Ok, I will refer to https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html and implement > the > checks in detail, but will still need to spend some time looking for the best > place > to insert the code. > > I think it best to address this from two fronts. On one hand rejecting extra > files > seems to have immediate benefit but the larger issue is portage exposing > untracked potentially malicious files to the user.
I've pushed two branches with two exploits I could think of. Please test your tools against them. In both cases, the directory should be rejected without any ill effects. https://github.com/mgorny/glep74-test-cases > > Has anything like a verity loopback filesystem been explored? It might reduce > duplication of work. I don't understand what a 'verity loopback filesystem' is. Could you elaborate? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Description: This is a digitally signed message part