Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Environment Whitelisting

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gmail.com>]

Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 22 August 2005 12:52, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> 
>>Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Was talking with Brian about the build environment and how settings
>>>were to be passed into the build environment.
>>>
>>>Essentially three scenarios were presented.
>>
>>Snip and summary:
>>
>>1) Pass everything
>>
>>2) Blacklist and strip bad stuff
>>
>>3) Whitelist good stuff; strip everything else
>>
>>
>>>To me 1) is unacceptable and 3) is the best option.  Feel free to
>>>shoot these down as you see fit ;)
>>
>>Option 4: Strip everything.
>>
>>Nothing is passed from the original environment; everything passed in the
>>environment is considered to be a "portage variable". This, I suppose,
>>is an extreme case of the whitelist.
> 
> 
> Well, I'll go against the flow. ;)
> 
> My preference would go 4, 3, 2 then 1. While Makefiles and configure scripts 
> may be "broken" upstream, how long is it before the breakage goes 
> unnoticed? More importantly, what's the chances of a dev finding the 
> breakage before users? Cleansing the environment to me is akin to using 
> sandbox. It offers protection against misbehaving packages...
> 

Good point. How about if we add environment sandboxing support (in addition to filesystem sandboxing) to sandbox.  With an environment sandbox, we could detect specifically which variables a build is fragile with regard to.  The sandbox would have both filesystem access and environment access violation summaries.

Zac
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list