On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:07:47 +0200, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jonas Karlsson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:43:32 +0200, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:27:15 +0200, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:37:51 +0200, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> There has been a proof of concept where a group of people has injected >>>>>>>>> bad packages into a distribution by asking to be a mirror and >>>>>>>>> providing >>>>>>>>> erroneous updates (1). >>>>>>>>> The issue is not that they provided spoofed, hacked or broken >>>>>>>>> packages, >>>>>>>>> which would fail with bad signature (or the user had to add the key to >>>>>>>>> their keyring), but they used old packages which they updated version >>>>>>>>> information for. An example for GoboLinux would be to repack an old >>>>>>>>> version, Foo--1.2--i686.tar.bz2 as Foo--2.3--i686.tar.bz2 and our >>>>>>>>> tools >>>>>>>>> would be fooled to thing that the latter was an update/later version >>>>>>>>> (you would also change the name of the version directory in the >>>>>>>>> tarball). >>>>>>>>> This meant that users that used that "mirror" would get "updates" that >>>>>>>>> wasn't always up to date and even might have security issues. >>>>>>>>> We need to add version information to our packages, any idea on a good >>>>>>>>> scheme for that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, we just need to add the full path to the FileHash file entries. >>>>>>>> If they are tampered with, FileHash.sig will alert. Fix committed to >>>>>>>> svn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think we should use *full* paths, only <program name>/<version>. >>>>>>> People might not have $goboPrograms at /Programs. >>>>>> >>>>>> These people better not use the binary packages, for tricky troubles >>>>>> await them if they do. >>>>>> >>>>> That depends on how they are built. Lucas has made successful builds >>>>> against >>>>> /System/Index, meaning that the binaries doesn't reference /Programs at >>>>> all. >>>>> That also means that packages can be placed anywhere, as long as they have >>>>> symlinks in /S/I. One can, already today, install binary packages at any >>>>> prefix and just symlinking them, with none or very little breakage >>>>> (depends >>>>> on application). I think we should cover these cases, especially as we >>>>> will >>>>> have them in the future. >>>> >>>> People who are willing to go through this "very little breakage" >>>> should know what they're doing, in which case they can bypass the >>>> check. I never wanted programs to be installed outside of /Programs >>>> (hell, that's why GoboLinux was created in the first place! to end the >>>> proliferation of locations where apps were installed!). If you want to >>>> encourage this behavior, go ahead and revert. >>>> >>> I don't think you're on the wrong track, just that <app>/<version> would >>> suffice and that would also support relocation better. There might be people >>> that has applications on a NFS mount, which would not be supported with the >>> current FileHash implementation. All we need is a record of app name and >>> version, that are signed, somewhere and check them against what we think it >>> is, which we get from parsing the tarball name. >> >> Unless the applications mounted from the NFS share are relocatable, >> union-mounting that share over /Programs would be the most portable >> solution. >> > What am I missing here? If an application is built against /S/I its files can > be placed anywhere, as long as it's symlinked to /S/I, right?
Yes and no. Viewfs still needs to know about $goboPrograms to create the virtual dependencies tree on demand. $goboIndex is coming to save us from headaches of having different programs hardcoding different prefixes. The ability to move applications to outside $goboPrograms was never intended to be the reason of that change. > And for those applications that are built with current patch can be relocated > as long as they don't reference its own prefix (which most of the times isn't > the case afaik). At least we hope so. We'll always have to post-process the installed files to check that (grep'ing for $goboPrograms on them should be enough). -- Lucas powered by /dev/dsp _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
