From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 6GUNCVEfW18mOwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:55:13 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id YBtPA1EfW1/7SgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:55:13 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CACB940630 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:44046 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcxj-0001p7-6d for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:55:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39238) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcxa-0001oG-21 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:55:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcxZ-0005Nf-PE for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:55:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcxZ-0008Aa-N3 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:55:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#43075: Prioritize providing substitutes for security-critical packages with potentially long build times Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:55:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43075 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: "Mason Hock" Received: via spool by 43075-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43075.159980724231315 (code B ref 43075); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:55:01 +0000 Received: (at 43075) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Sep 2020 06:54:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42146 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcwb-00088t-Kw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:54:01 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34914) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcwa-00088X-4M for 43075@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:54:00 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcwU-0005HG-Mu; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:53:54 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=36468 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kGcwU-0006dT-7b; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 02:53:54 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 26 Fructidor an 228 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:53:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Mason Hock's message of "Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:14:28 -0700") Message-ID: <87d02s7qiu.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 43075@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: 5yfPdhTJnRy2 Hi, "Mason Hock" skribis: > On Thu Sep 10, 2020 at 1:00 AM PDT, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Hi, >> >> chaosmonk skribis: >> >> > ungoogled-chromium receives frequent security updates, so it is >> > important for users to keep it up-to-date. However, binary >> > substitutes for the latest version are usually not available, and it >> > can take a very long time to build from source, possibly multiple >> > days on low-end hardware. This might tempt or force some users to put >> > off upgrading the package and run an older, vulnerable version until a >> > binary substitute is available or they have a chance to set aside the >> > uptime needed to build from source. >> > >> > I don't know what Guix's CI system looks like or how packages are >> > queued for building, but if there is a way to prioritize builds for >> > certain packages, I propose that substitutes for packages like >> > ungoogled-chromium should be built as soon as possible once there is a >> > new version. Other security-critical packages with potentially long >> > build times that come to mind are icecat and linux-libre. >> >> Thanks for your feedback. Our build farm has often been lagging behind >> lately and that=E2=80=99s something we=E2=80=99ve been working on. The >> ungoogled-chromium package is even more problematic because it takes >> more than ~80 CPU-hours to build, and that often times out with our >> current build farm settings (where we don=E2=80=99t allow builds to take= more >> than 6h, IIRC). > > Yes, Chromium's build time is obscene. However, not providing > substitutes for it duplicates that problem to the machines of every Guix > user who uses ungoogled-chromium. In the time that it would take Guix's > build farm to build u-c it could probably build many other packages, but > users are in the exact same situation, so a substitute for u-c is likely > more valuable to them than substitutes for those other packages. If it > is possible to override the 6h timeout value for individual packages, I > think that it would be worth doing so for u-c, and perhaps for Icecat > and Linux-libre as well. Definitely, yes. I just meant to explain why the build farm often lacks u-c substitutes currently, but I agree it must be addressed. Ludo=E2=80=99.