Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons

[Stephen P. Becker]

>
> OK so who has a mips you can test it on?

I've got 2 working mips machines.  The problem is, they are very busy 
being used to fulfill my obligations for being in charge of X11 stuff on 
mips.

>
> |
> | So then, are you volunteering to build mips stages with SSP to prove
> | that it works for certain?  We really don't have the manpower to do that
> | currently.  Are you going to answer to any bug reports we would get if
> | this is implemented?
> |
> | Also, in terms of "researching" this problem, do you realize you just
> | told the Gentoo/sparc strategic manager that he doesn't know anything
> | about his own arch?  "No! you're wrong! SSP does work on your arch!"
>
> "And ssp is supposed to be portable.  Etoh and Yoda's paper[1] says that
> The IBM stack smash protection method (ProPolice) is CPU and OS
> independent[2].  I think that you'd be within reason to complain to them
> if it didn't work accross all archs."
>
> I never gave you my personal guarantee, I said based on research and on
> what the maintainers say, it should; and that if it doesn't then it's
> something they (not you) need to fix.  I do like to think that people
> don't lie about their software, at the very least not intentionally.
>
> Obviously if it breaks on X arch, you disable it there.

Again, just because they say it theoretically works, doesn't mean it 
will in practice.  See Weeve's reply to your last email.

>
> | Reminds me of arguments I've had with people that tried to tell me (I'm
> | a geologist) the Earth is only 7000 years old because the bible says so.
> |  I suggest you pull your head out of the collective x86 ass.  The
> | non-x86 arch teams have enough breakage to deal with without introducing
> | another layer of potential brokenness.
>
> I was considering more than x86, else I'd have asked you why the hell it
> needs to be cross-arch.  I use x86_64 mainly, although I guess that
> counts as x86 huh?  (the amd64 caabal doesn't seem to agree :>)  In this
> case the architectural similarities put them in the same class.
>
> Still, I figured they meant "alpha sparc mips arm sh4 windows dos macos
> aix unix linux" when they said CPU and OS independent.

See Weeve's argument about toolchain problems in more exotic arches.

>
> |
> | I still don't understand why we can't simply place a blurb in the
> | install handbook as I suggested before.  It is always much easier to add
> | something than take it away in this circumstance.  If a user *really*
> | wants that functionality, they'll add it in.  If a user *really* doesn't
> | want it, but it is on by default, they will have to rebuild their whole
> | userland, which on machines such a those supported by the mips port
> | would be *extremely* painful.
> |
>
> It's a design decision still.  If you supply a non-SSP userland in your
> stages, the user has to start from stage 1 (not 2 or 3) to get SSP.  If
> you supply an SSP userland in the stages, the user has to start from
> stage 1 to remove it.  The hardened stages come with PIE-SSP, but what
> if the user doesn't want a full hardened system (i.e. pie and the
> hardened profile)?  Obviously you don't want to waste more space on the
> mirrors supplying non-ssp/ssp/pie-ssp-selinux stages for each arch.

First of all, we don't have hardened stages for mips.  But anyway, I 
would contend that those users who would want SSP are those hardcore 
enough to start from a stage1 or stage2 on a mips box (installs can 
become a weeklong affair in some cases).

>
> Why not take a poll of the user base, and ask if SSP should be on by
> default or not?
>

Sure...why don't we also poll the user base if reiserfs 4 should be the 
default fs of Gentoo?  The point here is that sometimes the developers 
know better.

Steve



--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list