From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id GHFlICrPWl+jfgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:13:14 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 8H5gHCrPWl/WbAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:13:14 +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 8AE399402A2 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:47696 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXcl-0002uU-JY for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:13:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35126) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXcc-0002so-Vo for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:13:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58462) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXcc-0007P0-MH for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXcc-0008Ik-Gp for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:13:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#43075: Prioritize providing substitutes for security-critical packages with potentially long build times References: <2WPQFQ.3JQYOGZG7WXZ@riseup.net> Resent-From: "Mason Hock" Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:13:02 +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: "zimoun" , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 43075-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43075.159978677231895 (code B ref 43075); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:13:02 +0000 Received: (at 43075) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Sep 2020 01:12:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41775 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXcS-0008IM-Hp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:12:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:60448) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXcQ-0008IE-9V for 43075@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:12:51 -0400 Received: from bell.riseup.net (bell-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Bnd693cxTzFdwm; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1599786769; bh=y3NQ03M36vbqhfqEeNBVAAGyaYiEjxQfH8GDZWAELfw=; h=Cc:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oqnnD+Mfsuh4pVGqi1KW197AChMcr22agSrtaRhSEzQA+4Y7u4/5lufZlJwqlquO2 5PIIPU+8ERnKX61c2NN98tD5+DldK8LO+43Bti1J0YzKtaPztkL+cOEsOZ3L3D+2If s8GBf5OqN0Wz6Vpiha2ZAucmj0heAu0eRx1StoXM= X-Riseup-User-ID: 135F4EC1E1754EBB40E4B9D08785775A60E9C5DBA2BB19192B9BBA2B35870D31 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bell.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bnd686tMFzJmhK; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: "Mason Hock" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:06:31 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) 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=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=oqnnD+Mf; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=riseup.net (policy=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: 2.59 X-TUID: Pb8i5FTI79r7 On Thu Sep 10, 2020 at 2:19 AM PDT, zimoun wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 10:01, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > chaosmonk skribis: > > > > 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. > > > Right now we=E2=80=99re trying to improve build throughput in general b= ut your > > proposal makes sense, of course. > > The recent updates of ungoogled-chromium do not mention [security > updates]. Security fixes are generally provided upstream by the Chromium devs, so the place to look for them is not ungoogled-chromium's changelog, but Chrome/Chromium's changelog.[1] > Well, I do not know if they are. So the question would be: > what triggers the special security build? For ungoogled-chromium, it is safe to assume that every new Chromium release will contain security fixes. I'm not sure about a general solution that would work for other packages. If Guix is tracking a package's upstream VCS and upstream has a consistent commit message format indicating security fixes, perhaps releases containing such commits could trigger a security build. Otherwise I'm not sure. [1] https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2020/08/stable-channel-update-for= -desktop.html > Well, the work-in-progress [1] about some metrics of Cuirass (Guix's > CI) would provide interesting answers on the concrete feasibility and > future improvements. > > [1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/32548#1 > > > All the best, > simon