From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Mon Nov 2 22:37:51 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0411445D30C; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:37:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from manu@bidouilliste.com) Received: from mx.blih.net (mx.blih.net [212.83.155.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mx.blih.net", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CQ78s3qRCz46k7; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:37:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from manu@bidouilliste.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bidouilliste.com; s=mx; t=1604356667; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BQcykIBkAipksxMQeNoI/Ss8zMxFrD4FsySJoYgzWAw=; b=H5+RbgmG0CcOnee3MzfAFj55FTjWGSdYjSwDNDpyIJpLSTZy2+uIGIcxD/YAa9TXVYMmsN ZQP2k1xmMTTSpjmV34oLCTbZpaeLU+KaBA4y6JioqRb5qjIT5HUvgV5lLp5O/U0JsLmvP9 +M1R7o3cce3V6rzTcRtGxQ13GOUDyn0= Received: from amy.home (lfbn-idf2-1-288-247.w82-123.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.123.126.247]) by mx.blih.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id fe795c4c (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:37:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:37:47 +0100 From: Emmanuel Vadot To: Stefan Esser Cc: Oliver Pinter , src-committers , svn-src-all , svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r367280 - head/lib/libc/gen Message-Id: <20201102233747.f545b6ca667d4025a3f3371b@bidouilliste.com> In-Reply-To: References: <202011021848.0A2Im7Kx098921@repo.freebsd.org> <338fdfbb-6fad-0e44-5df6-b5a1c38d3e4f@freebsd.org> <20201102224907.401c9200dffba42cab827b2d@bidouilliste.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; amd64-portbld-freebsd13.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CQ78s3qRCz46k7 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bidouilliste.com header.s=mx header.b=H5+RbgmG; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=bidouilliste.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of manu@bidouilliste.com designates 212.83.155.74 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=manu@bidouilliste.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.19 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bidouilliste.com:s=mx]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[manu]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx:c]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.02)[-1.023]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bidouilliste.com:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[bidouilliste.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.64)[-0.642]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.03)[-1.029]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:12876, ipnet:212.83.128.0/19, country:FR]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com,freebsd.org]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[svn-src-head,svn-src-all]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 22:37:51 -0000 On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:24:34 +0100 Stefan Esser wrote: > Am 02.11.20 um 22:49 schrieb Emmanuel Vadot: > > On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:41:38 +0100 > > Stefan Esser wrote: > >=20 > >> Am 02.11.20 um 20:20 schrieb Oliver Pinter:> On Monday, November 2, > >> 2020, Stefan E=DFer >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Author: se > >>> Date: Mon Nov=A0 2 18:48:06 2020 > >>> New Revision: 367280 > >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/367280 > >>> > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> =A0 Re-arrange some of the code to separate writable user tree > >>> variables from > >>> =A0 R/O variables. > >>> > >>> =A0 While here fix some nearby style. No functional change inte= nded. > >>> > >>> =A0 MFC after:=A0 =A0 1 month > >>> > >>> > >>> Is there any phabricator reference for this / these commit(s) + revie= wer > >>> lists? > >> > >> The previous commit that has been refined in this one has been > >> discussed in D27009. > >> > >> I had added the new R/W sysctl variable to a switch statement that > >> contained one R/O string value, and excluded the OID from causing > >> an error return when a new value had been passed. > >> > >> This was functionally OK, but I have decided to move handling of > >> the new writable variable to before the check for a write attempt > >> and thus need to test specifically for its OID. > >> > >> This sysctl variable is referenced in Scott Longs proposed > >> getlocalbase() function (D27022), but also in the change to make > >> it define defaults paths in /etc/defaults/rc.conf (D27014). > >> > >> I do not support to make LOCALBASE dynamic for a broad range of > >> programs, since this could lead to severe security issues (e.g. > >> when a program is restricted by policy settings LOCALBASE/etc and > >> an user-defined LOCALBASE could be used to circumvent them. > >> > >> There are already programs that respect a LOCALBASE environment > >> variable, e.g. the pkg program, to allow it to e.g. operate with > >> a DESTDIR prefix other than "/". This is a program that could > >> instead use getlocalbase(), IMHO. > >> > >> But for security reasons all files that determine policies and > >> exist in LOCALBASE since they are not distributed as part of the > >> base system, should be located in a secure way, and that is by > >> referring to a compiled in trusted path, IMHO. > >> > >> Even if the sysctl variable "user.localbase" can only be written to > >> by root, the use of getlocalbase() provided by a shared library could > >> allow to perform a LD_PRELOAD attack (provide a getlocalbase() that > >> leadsto a user provided policy file instead of the admin controlled > >> one). > >> > >> Regards, STefan > >=20 > > I think that the first question we want to ask is : Do we want to > > support LOCALBASE being different than /usr/local >=20 > The big majority of users will keep the default value, and I do not > see a good reason for a change, except if there is a large installed > base that traditionally uses another prefix (I have seen /vol/local > and /opt, but also OS and architecture-specific prefixes, for example). I'd still like to see some arguments for such installs. > > I honestly don't see any advantages of making it !=3D/usr/local/ and > > before we start putting a lot of new/useless(for I guess 99% of our > > user base) in the tree we should here why people are using /usr/pkg or > > whatever weird location. >=20 > No, why should we [assess] (assuming that word is to be implied in > your sentence) why people want to be able to easily use a different > prefix? That would be a waste of time, IMHO. >=20 > I know that there are legitimate reasons to want a different prefix, > and we had requests to make it easier to support it. What are thoses ? > We have literal uses of /usr/local in a lot of files in the FreeBSD > base system (more than 1700) and this is not going to change. >=20 > But it was easy to replace a number of such literal pathes in base > system binaries, and we can make it easier for those that need a > different prefix to get it consistently used. >=20 > > If they have some good argument, then we should proceed further. >=20 > You do not have to participate in this effort=20 I do have to participate, it's a common project. Also since I also participate in pkg(8) and in ports/Mk lua/blah stuff there might be some stuff to do there so yes I need to participate. And since you never really started a conversation on a ml (that I know of) my only mean to start this participation is answering a commit email. > - there are so many > other areas to work on (and I know you are very active in one). Only one ? Damn, I should work more then. > But please do not ask those that have started to reduce the use of > literal /usr/local in the base system to justify this work. Seriously ? I have every right to ask you to justify this when it was not talked about in a public forum. > If you are happy with /usr/local, then you are not affected at all. > And if you need to configure your system to use a different prefix, > you are welcome to let us know which steps are still causing much > effort and should be worked on to make it easier ... >=20 > Do you have any reason to be against removal of literal /usr/local > from the base system in favor of using a symbolic name for it? Do you have any reason to remove them at all ? > Regards, STefan --=20 Emmanuel Vadot