Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia-kernel p.masked by hardened profile

[Willie Wong]

First, thanks for the pointers. See below

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:08:52PM -0700, Penguin Lover Richard Fish squawked:
> On 7/11/06, Willie Wong <wwong@×××××××××.edu> wrote:
> > 2. Is there more information about what "more harm than good" means?
> >   I tried googling but the only thing I found was a commit log on
> >   solar's website with a one-liner about p.masking nvidia-kernel. I
> >   want to know what kind of problems that nvidia drivers incur so I
> >   can decided whether to give up 3D acceleration, the hardened
> >   profile, or ignore solar's advice and unmask the packages.
>
> Well, see what the hardened handbook has to say about binary drivers and
> x.org:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/hardenedxorg.xml#doc_chap4

Well, that page is rather outdated. I am pretty sure nvidia-glx
supports dlloader since several versions back (at least since summer
of last year): after all, I've been running it. There were some
hiccups early on when I first started using it (several programs I
often use, such as ut2004 and mplayer requires chpax/paxctl to turn
off MPROTECT and RANDEXEC), but it has been running well on my system. 
>
> I also found this bug:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139047

The attitude expressed in that bug is also the point made on the
gentoo-hardened mailing list (I did a search on gmane after sending
out my original e-mail). Basically it seems that the devs attitude is
that "the driver is binary, we can't fix it if it is broken, so we
won't support it." And I am completely fine with that. But I remember
one year ago them telling us to use dlloader and to use binary drivers
at our own risk, I am wondering if anyone here knows why the sudden
change in attitude into "I am telling you not to use nvidia binary
drivers", namely, if there is any new found incompatibility of
nvidia-drivers with the hardened profile. 

> There may also be a valid security concern with binary-only kernel
> modules: since they cannot be audited for security, one should assume
> that they are horribly insecure.  Any exploit here could comprimise
> the entire system, so one could argue they are totally inappropriate
> for a 'hardened' system.

Yes, I took on that risk when I started running a hardened desktop
with nvidia binary drivers. What I am most interested is what new
significant flaws (if any) were found in the binary drivers that makes
its use such taboo. 

Furthermore, I thought one of the things that the hardened team were
less happy about is not so much the binary kernel driver, but the
libGL.so nvidia provides... basically any program that uses opengl
that links against the nvidia-glx would need to have certain PAX flags
turned off to run without being killed by the kernel. 

I am beginning to sense the situation is more along the line of the
devs formalizing the policy of not supporting binary drivers and
telling users to stop bothering them with bugs they cannot do anything
about. If that is indeed the case, I'd simply unmask the offending
packages and deal with them myself. 
>
> > 3. Is this (the fact that I am running a hardened profile) the reason
> >   that if I 'emerge --pretend --update xorg-x11 --verbose', among the
> >   list of VIDEO_CARDS options displayed, I do not see nvidia?
>
> That is correct.  video_cards_nvidia is in the hardened profile's use.mask.
>

I looked at man portage, and I am not quite sure about this:

Is it possible to unmask the useflag by, for example, writing to
/etc/portage/use.mask the line "-video_cards_nvidia"? Or must I modify
/etc/make.profile/use.mask?

thx

W
-- 
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 11:25
-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list