| 1 |
On 12/18/2014 07:09 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi fellow hardened devs: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm sorry for missing the meeting but things came up and the day got |
| 5 |
> hectic. It is an important meeting because we were to discuss: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 1) what we want with toolchain.eclass - There is a move to get rid of |
| 8 |
> the eclas because it is "messy". This is probably a bad thing in |
| 9 |
> general and especially for hardened so we should discuss the pros and |
| 10 |
> cons and what we want. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 2) what to do about tar and POSIX capabilities in the context of |
| 13 |
> building stage3's. Utilities like ping that used to be setuid to root |
| 14 |
> are now just using posix caps. But preserving xattrs with tar is |
| 15 |
> tricky. Since we dealt with this for the user.pax.* xattr namespace |
| 16 |
> jmbsvicetto asked us to look at security.capability. However, the issue |
| 17 |
> may now be mute because I just got a message from him that |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> tar --xattrs --xattrs-include=security.capability |
| 20 |
> --xattrs-include=user.* --acls -xjpvf |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> works to get us all the xattr goodies we need for hardened and gentoo in |
| 23 |
> general. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> We should try to discuss 1 soon-ish before Cthulu awakens and madness |
| 27 |
> reigns in gentoo. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
regarding 1: a refactoring is in order probably, but what are the |
| 30 |
specific complaints? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
regarding 2: The thing we need to ask is if we want to ask users to run |
| 33 |
that to extract stage3 tarballs, instead of -xf and the like. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives