On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:20:23 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> W dniu pią, 22.09.2017 o godzinie 12∶57 +0200, użytkownik Alexis > Ballier napisał: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:07:18 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > W dniu czw, 21.09.2017 o godzinie 15∶41 -0700, użytkownik Matt > > > Turner napisał: > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Michał Górny > > > > <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > Given that sandbox is utterly broken by design, I don't really > > > > > want to put too much effort in trying to make it a little > > > > > better. I'd rather put the minimal effort required to make it > > > > > not-much-worse. > > > > > > > > You said in your initial email that you weren't an expert in its > > > > internals, but here you say it's broken by design. Why do you > > > > think that? > > > > > > > > > > Because it uses LD_PRELOAD which is a huge hack and which causes > > > guaranteed issues we can't really fix. All we can do is disable > > > it for emacs, for compiler-rt and I'm afraid this list will grow > > > because overriding random library functions is never a good idea. > > > > > > > I think we're all ears for a better solution. There are probably > > much better ways to do sandboxing these days than 15 years ago. > > > > LD_PRELOAD does not work with static binaries. Hence the non > > portable ptrace stuff. Hence bugs. Etc. The point is, that's the > > best we have now. > > > > I know of two obvious alternatives: ptrace and filesystem layer (e.g. > FUSE). > > For the former, there's sydbox. I'm going to look into integrating it > into Portage when I have more time. From: https://github.com/alip/pinktrace/blob/master/configure.ac case "$host_cpu" in i[[3456]]86|pentium) x86?64*|amd64) ia64) powerpc64*) powerpc*) arm*) [add support for those arches] *) AC_MSG_RESULT([NO!]) AC_MSG_ERROR([Architecture $host_cpu is not supported by pinktrace]) ;; sandbox keywords: 2.11-r5:0: ~alpha ~amd64 ~arm ~arm64 ~hppa ~ia64 ~m68k ~mips ~ppc ~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~sparc-fbsd ~x86 ~x86-fbsd Good luck adding the missing bits! > For the latter, I have writing one in TODO. But I'm not sure when I'll > have enough time to do work on it. Not sure how that would work, but you'll likely need some kind of chroot/container since you don't want to trust a random binary ran as root to respect environment variables. Alexis.
