public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Martin Uecker <muecker@gwdg.de>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>,
	Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net>,
	 Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>,
	 Sandra Loosemore <sloosemore@baylibre.com>,
	Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
	 overseers@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	binutils@sourceware.org,  gdb@sourceware.org,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:02:31 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1261f798-175b-961d-b937-f3a9f4246659@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c805cf36a25821223d5bda6c8bb84f7d536019de.camel@gwdg.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1922 bytes --]

Hello,

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:

> The backdoor was hidden in a complicated autoconf script...

Which itself had multiple layers and could just as well have been a 
complicated cmake function.

> > (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex".  And have you looked at 
> > other build systems?  I have, and none of them are less complex, just 
> > opaque in different ways from make+autotools).
> 
> I ask a very specific question: To what extend is testing 
> for features instead of semantic versions and/or supported
> standards still necessary?

I can't answer this with absolute certainty, but points to consider: the 
semantic versions need to be maintained just as well, in some magic way.  
Because ultimately software depend on features of dependencies not on 
arbitrary numbers given to them.  The numbers encode these features, in 
the best case, when there are no errors.  So, no, version numbers are not 
a replacement for feature tests, they are a proxy.  One that is manually 
maintained, and hence prone to errors.

Now, supported standards: which one? ;-)  Or more in earnest: while on 
this mailing list here we could chose a certain set, POSIX, some 
languages, Windows, MacOS (versions so-and-so).  What about other 
software relying on other 3rdparty feature providers (libraries or system 
services)?  Without standards?

So, without absolute certainty, but with a little bit of it: yes, feature 
tests are required in general.  That doesn't mean that we could not 
do away with quite some of them for (e.g.) GCC, those that hold true on 
any platform we support.  But we can't get rid of the infrastructure for 
that, and can't get rid of certain classes of tests.

> This seems like a problematic approach that may have been necessary 
> decades ago, but it seems it may be time to move on.

I don't see that.  Many aspects of systems remain non-standardized.


Ciao,
Michael.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-04-03 16:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-29 20:39 Security warning about xz library compromise Mark Wielaard
2024-04-01 15:06 ` Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor Mark Wielaard
2024-04-02 19:54   ` Sandra Loosemore
2024-04-02 20:03     ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-02 20:20       ` Paul Koning
2024-04-02 20:28         ` Ian Lance Taylor
2024-04-03  6:26           ` Martin Uecker
2024-04-03 14:00             ` Michael Matz
2024-04-03 14:14               ` Paul Koning
2024-04-03 14:32               ` Martin Uecker
2024-04-03 14:46                 ` Jeffrey Walton
2024-04-03 16:02                 ` Michael Matz [this message]
2024-04-03 16:26                   ` Joel Sherrill
2024-04-03 16:32                   ` Martin Uecker
2024-04-03 16:51                 ` Andreas Schwab
2024-04-03 16:56                 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-04-03 18:46               ` Jonathon Anderson
2024-04-03 19:01                 ` Martin Uecker
2024-04-05 21:15                   ` Andrew Sutton
2024-04-06 13:00                     ` Richard Biener
2024-04-06 15:59                       ` Martin Uecker
2024-04-04 13:59                 ` Michael Matz
2024-04-09 16:44                   ` anderson.jonathonm
2024-04-09 17:57                     ` Andreas Schwab
2024-04-09 19:59                       ` Jonathon Anderson
2024-04-09 20:11                         ` Paul Koning
2024-04-09 21:40                           ` Jeffrey Walton
2024-04-09 21:50                             ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-09 21:58                               ` Sam James
2024-04-09 22:15                                 ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-09 22:22                                   ` Sam James
2024-04-09 22:53                                     ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-09 22:03                               ` Jonathon Anderson
2024-04-09 22:10                                 ` Sam James
2024-04-09 21:54                           ` Jonathon Anderson
2024-04-09 22:00                             ` Sam James
2024-04-10 14:09                             ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2024-04-10 18:47                               ` Jonathon Anderson
2024-04-10 19:00                                 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2024-04-10 10:26                       ` Claudio Bantaloukas
2024-04-02 22:08     ` Guinevere Larsen
2024-04-02 22:50       ` Jeffrey Walton
2024-04-02 23:20       ` Mark Wielaard
2024-04-02 23:34       ` Paul Koning
2024-04-03  0:37         ` Jeffrey Walton
2024-04-03  8:08       ` Florian Weimer
2024-04-03 13:53         ` Joel Sherrill
2024-04-04 10:25           ` Mark Wielaard
2024-04-10 16:30           ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-04-21 15:30             ` Mark Wielaard
2024-04-21 20:40               ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-04-21 20:52                 ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-04-30 11:28                 ` Alejandro Colomar
2024-04-03 14:04         ` Tom Tromey
2024-04-03 14:42           ` Jeff Law
2024-04-04 10:48             ` Mark Wielaard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1261f798-175b-961d-b937-f3a9f4246659@suse.de \
    --to=matz@suse.de \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=iant@golang.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=mark@klomp.org \
    --cc=muecker@gwdg.de \
    --cc=overseers@sourceware.org \
    --cc=paulkoning@comcast.net \
    --cc=sloosemore@baylibre.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).