Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>, rich0@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage FEATURE suggestion - limited-visibility builds
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:58:11
Message-Id: 501870D4.2060802@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage FEATURE suggestion - limited-visibility builds by "Michał Górny"
1 Il 31/07/2012 21:27, Michał Górny ha scritto:
2 > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:16:34 -0400
3 > Rich Freeman<rich0@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Ian Stakenvicius<axs@g.o>
6 >> wrote:
7 >>> Although that is true, it would be -WAY- too slow to generate said
8 >>> list via equery/q* helpers; I think that's where the
9 >>> extended-attributes and/or cache idea comes into play.
10 >> I agree. This needs to be high-performance when it comes to
11 >> individual file access. If it takes 10 seconds per build to populate
12 >> some database or set up a bazillion bind mounts that isn't the end of
13 >> the world, but if it takes an extra 0.1 seconds every time a file is
14 >> read that could add up VERY fast on a large build.
15 > I'd be more afraid about resources, and whether the kernel will be
16 > actually able to handle bazillion bind mounts. And if, whether it won't
17 > actually cause more overhead than copying the whole system to some kind
18 > of tmpfs.
19 If testing show that bind mounts are too heavy we could resort to
20 LD_PRELOAD a library that filter the acces to the disk,
21 or to rework sandbox to also hide w/o errors some files,
22 with an appropriate database (sys-apps/mlocate come to mind) every
23 access will have negligible additional cost compared to that of
24 rotational disks.
25 >> Ideally I'd like to see the same thing extended to run-time, and short
26 >> of writing some entirely new security model into the kernel or taking
27 >> namespaces to a whole new level, part of me thinks that
28 >> auto-generating SELinux policies might be the solution, so that the
29 >> existing mechanism can be extended.
30 >>
31 >> The mad scientist in me keeps thinking up crazy schemes so that
32 >> package collisions can be handled by each package just seeing whatever
33 >> it wants to see - maybe the entire filesystem looks different
34 >> depending on what app you use. Then I realize that bash is an
35 >> application, and how on earth would a human make sense of a system
36 >> where no file has any stable identifier other than maybe a
37 >> content-hashed key. Then that makes me wonder why we link to
38 >> libraries by filename anyway, when we could just give each library a
39 >> GUID and version, and maybe a more general identifier for cases where
40 >> you have alternate implementations.
41 >>
42 >> But, as long as we're still just running Gentoo on Unix-like OSes
43 >> maybe tweaking the jail is a good place to start...
44 >>
45 >> Rich
46 >>
47 >
48 >

Replies