Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: sandbox@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Non-maintainer sandbox patching
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 22:22:43
Message-Id: 1483050139.1140.23.camel@gentoo.org
1 Hello,
2
3 So I provided a patch for a sandbox bug hitting bigger projects using
4 -export-symbols-regex with a long list of object files. 3 months ago.
5 Bug has been there since forever, reported 15 months ago, with some
6 good clues to what's up since 9 months.
7 It has been sitting there, collecting dust, with no action from
8 sandbox@ whatsoever. As such, I plan to finally non-maintainer push
9 this fix straight to ~arch as a sandbox-2.10 revision bump once I have
10 my months old GPG machine tree and system updated (this week or early
11 next week). And 2.11, but because that is still p.masked due to it
12 causing issues for XUL stuff (with analysis of what's going on also
13 available since a while now), that's going to be a p.masked revbump
14 alongside the 2.11 masks.
15 If I can't do my gnome-builder bumps that depends on this right away, I
16 might let it simmer in p.mask for some hours or days too, especially if
17 I see some sort of sandbox@ action appearing or some valid objections
18 by the time I get to it.
19
20 This is the bug I have fix for:
21 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553092
22
23 libtool ends up running "nm -B" with the long list of object files as
24 arguments and saves the result in a temporary file (which it'll apply
25 the regex to then), but various shells in some environments (including
26 bash-4.3 and dash) end up trying to glob it and check if it's a dir,
27 calling opendir with the whole commandline as argument. If that is
28 longer than 8196 characters, sandbox gets confused because it
29 internally uses PATH_MAX*2 buffers, it gets cut and things fall over in
30 ways I'm not interested in finding out deeper.
31
32 At least gnome-builder-3.20+ and graphicsmagick are affected for some
33 (might depend on what their shell is doing).
34
35 Because of this, gnome-builder hasn't seen version bumps, while the
36 existing version in tree (3.18, it didn't use so many object files in
37 the linker line quite yet back then to trigger the bug) are completely
38 unusable with current stable gtksourceview and co.
39
40 So, any objections with me pushing in the sandbox revbumps?
41
42
43 PS: I'm sure our mozilla team would appreciate also help with sandbox
44 bug 580726, which is a bug in the ptrace fallback, which now gets
45 triggered with the p.masked sandbox 2.11 due to some inherent issues
46 with the default non-ptrace code that were hit in Chrome OS project
47 thing doing some own memory management (and so it fallbacks more often,
48 when it finds custom memory allocation stuff based on some heuristics).
49 The ptrace fallback gets now used with 2.11 for firefox and co as well
50 (probably due to jemalloc usage), and that fallback sandbox codepath is
51 apparently buggy for its more complex case. Alternatively maybe these
52 heuristics could be less triggerhappy to fallback to ptrace.
53
54
55 Mart

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-maintainer sandbox patching Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>