Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Patrick McLean <chutzpah@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:28:12
Message-Id: c75f7fd8-245f-f835-53f5-537f9be40d4f@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reviving the Sandbox project by Mart Raudsepp
1 On 2017-09-21 02:07 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
2 > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 21.09.2017 kell 22:54, kirjutas Michał Górny:
3 >> W dniu czw, 21.09.2017 o godzinie 23∶33 +0300, użytkownik Mart
4 >> Raudsepp
5 >> napisał:
6 >>> Ühel kenal päeval, N, 21.09.2017 kell 21:56, kirjutas Michał Górny:
7 >>>> Hi, everyone.
8 >>>>
9 >>>> TL;DR: I'm looking for new people to resume work on sandbox, and
10 >>>> I
11 >>>> will
12 >>>> most likely branch it at v2.10 and start keep-alive work on top
13 >>>> of
14 >>>> that.
15 >>>>
16 >>>>
17 >>>> The state of our sandbox is not very well. Gentoo is currently
18 >>>> using
19 >>>> the old v2.10 with local patches. v2.11 is p.masked for a long
20 >>>> time
21 >>>> because of multiple unsolved bugs. The git repository also
22 >>>> includes
23 >>>> v2.12 tag that has not even been packaged for Gentoo. From what
24 >>>> I've
25 >>>> been able to establish, the bugs causing v2.11 mask are still
26 >>>> present
27 >>>> in git head.
28 >>>>
29 >>>> To add to this, the only person maintaining the code (vapier) has
30 >>>> not
31 >>>> touched it since March, and AFAIA he's not responding to any
32 >>>> contact
33 >>>> attempts from within Gentoo. Given this and the importance of
34 >>>> sandbox
35 >>>> to
36 >>>> Gentoo at the moment, I think it's reasonable to presume he's MIA
37 >>>> and start looking for volunteers to join the effort.
38 >>>>
39 >>>> I have already added myself to the project page [1] and I'm going
40 >>>> to
41 >>>> try
42 >>>> to put some effort into improving the state of things. However,
43 >>>> I'm
44 >>>> not
45 >>>> really an expert in the high magic used in sandbox. If anyone is
46 >>>> interested in helping out, feel free to add yourself as well.
47 >>>>
48 >>>>
49 >>>> The above considered, I don't think I'm really going to be able
50 >>>> to
51 >>>> solve
52 >>>> the problems introduced by v2.11. If nobody has a better idea,
53 >>>> I'm
54 >>>> going
55 >>>> to branch sandbox at v2.10 and look into backporting whatever's
56 >>>> feasible
57 >>>> and resuming development in hotfix mode on top of that.
58 >>>
59 >>> Do you have a handy list of problems with v2.11?
60 >>> Perhaps all is well for Gentoo usages after the more ptrace-happy
61 >>> fallbacking commit (apparently was needed by ChromeOS) is reverted
62 >>> if
63 >>> ptrace-path problems don't get fixes?
64 >>>
65 >>
66 >> There are two bugs listed in p.mask reason. There's a lot of bugs on
67 >> Bugzilla but I don't know which versions they affect.
68 >
69 >
70 > #580726 comes from the ptrace thing I mentioned. I identified the
71 > commit that makes it fallback to ptrace for firefox case, while it
72 > seemed to work fine before without fallback, and then there are issues
73 > in that ptrace codepath that might have always been there, but they
74 > just didn't get hit due to ptrace fallback being much rarer before
75 > this. I believe the commit hash is mentioned on the bug.
76 >
77
78 I have been running sandbox-2.11 for quite awhile on my workstation, the
79 only problem I have actually encountered is the issue with Firefox. That
80 issue seems to have gone away in firefox-55 though, so I am not sure
81 that it is going to be relevant for much longer.
82
83 > #578582 seems to be just patrick being special and refusing to provide
84 > any information about the bug that no-one else hits.
85 >
86 > Maybe if we revert that more easy ptrace fallback stuff for now, the
87 > rest in sandbox git master is fine (if my opendir fix gets applied
88 > that's only patched in via ebuild right now)?
89 >
90 > Mart
91 >