From: Martin Uecker <muecker@gwdg.de>
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.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 18:32:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10275adf764d87d40c1f29375ca029dd00634412.camel@gwdg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1261f798-175b-961d-b937-f3a9f4246659@suse.de>
Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 18:02 +0200 schrieb Michael Matz:
> 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.
Don't me wrong, cmake is no way better. Another problem was
actually hidden in a cmake test in upstream git in plain
sight:
https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd14dedfe63833f8ccbe41b55823b00;hp=af071ef7702debef4f1d324616a0137a5001c14c
>
> > > (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.
It would certainly need to be maintained just like now autoconf
configuration needs to be maintained.
> 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.
Tests are also prone to errors and - as the example above shows -
also very fragile and susceptible to manipulation.
>
> 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.
This is just part of the problem.
Martin
>
>
> Ciao,
> Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-03 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ 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
2024-04-03 16:26 ` Joel Sherrill
2024-04-03 16:32 ` Martin Uecker [this message]
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 22:21 ` 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=10275adf764d87d40c1f29375ca029dd00634412.camel@gwdg.de \
--to=muecker@gwdg.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=matz@suse.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).