On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Thomas D. <whi...@whissi.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Probably best to make FEATURES=distcc disable network-sandbox
> > then. People enabling it are explicitly saying they want to access
> > the network.
>
> Do you really think it is a good behavior to automatically disable
> something you can call a "security feature"? At least there should be a
> warning, not?
>

I think you are reading much further into Ryan's statement than he intended.


>
> Think about situations where the user just know "network-sandbox is
> important, because it will protect my system from unwanted
> modifications" (the thing where the test suite for example will write to
> the local, productive, database server...) and therefore explicitly
> enable that feature by hand.
>
> But the user is *also* using distcc to speed up the compilation/update
> time in his/her network.
>
> The user maybe knows that distcc is using network, but he/she might be
> surprised that it won't work together with the network-sandbox feature.
> If we now silently disable network-sandbox because the user also set
> distcc he/she might be even more surprised when he/she noticed that
> his/her local productive database system was accessed by emerge though
> he/she enabled network-sandbox feature to prevent this (but which was
> automatically disabled without a warning).
>
> Because it is security relevant and the impact could be a real problem I
> won't even show just a warning the user could miss. If network-sandbox
> *and* distcc are both set, emerge should fail complaining about the
> problem.
> This is something the user should be aware of and must be solved by hand.
>
> So if we decide to enable the network-sandbox feature by default (which
> we should do), users also using distcc must take action.
>
> And if in future we will solve the problem so that both features can be
> used together, we should send out a news item for people using the
> distcc feature telling them "Now you can re-enable (the default)
> network-sandbox feature"...
>
>
> -Thomas
>
>
>

Reply via email to