From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E7HuV-0000LJ-FJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:24:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7MJMvc8018596; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:22:57 GMT Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.194]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7MJMt4O018809 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:22:56 GMT Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i23so1427066wra for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PNVJpqf4Z/WUeab9MhTL+rWIvXX1txHwkcsoZvwDBBBplN0R4ksoS4N7F+v+uCYkaoHlyAb/qFvZVprExeOCPZiO/pkssWLQkaghPnJArTsG6plaED2O/bWzO/WF8EC1Dvuvl0oZWCXzDki0LfcOsvJ7CLoaJszrC7PYVy27nXs= Received: by 10.54.100.20 with SMTP id x20mr4016568wrb; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.2? ([68.101.114.219]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 27sm4451608wrl.2005.08.22.12.23.38; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <430A265D.8090907@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:24:13 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050804) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Environment Whitelisting References: <4308E349.8010107@egr.msu.edu> <20050822035207.GA26017@phaenix.haell.com> <200508222352.13913.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <430A149D.1050907@gmail.com> <430A2453.5050008@egr.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <430A2453.5050008@egr.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e3f872a2-69d2-4818-9948-753cf67cf6e5 X-Archives-Hash: a4221d43b4b3c22cd8c99c211b62f95e warnera6 wrote: >>> 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. > > "environmental sandbox" being similar to sandbox, or the cleansing of > the environment? The latter is easy, the former...I am not sure how you > begin to detect variable use in bash :/ > AFAIK we can intercept getenv() calls the same way that we intercept filesystem calls. IMO the white/black/override lists would best be implemented at this level. Zac -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list