On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:28:10 +0200, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. > No, but it is an effect and I don't think we should work against that by implementing a filehash that doesn't support it. >> 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). > Yes, we do this post processing and thanks to this most applications *are* relocatable, since they will use /S/L (or /S/I), so I still don't see why we shouldn't work with it instead of against it. -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
