[bug#67512] [PATCH v4 3/4] gnu: Add wasm packages.

[Ian Eure <ian@retrospec.tv>]

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 13 2024, Ian Eure wrote:
>
>> D. Fold the new (gnu packages wasm) into (gnu packages 
>> librewolf). This is the
>> only place they’re used, but it sounds like there’s desire to 
>> port some of the
>> other firefoxen to this stuff, so probably not a good long-term 
>> option.
>
> Does Librewolf depend on the Wasm packages more than the other 
> Firefox
> based browsers?

Upstream Librewolf doesn’t depend on the WASM packages more than 
any other Firefoxen.  I believe that WASM sandboxing is an 
optional feature for recent Firefox and FF-derived browsers.


In case anyone reading this isn’t familiar: Firefox has taken some 
libraries that handle untrusted data (which are implemented in 
C/C++) and complied those WASM, which it runs in isolated 
sandboxes.  The idea being that if there’s a vulnerability in one 
of those libraries, the impact will be diminished becasue the 
exploit runs in an environment with very limited privileges[1].


> My point is that if your Librewolf package is independent from 
> the Wasm packages, they can be split and reviewed independently.

The Librewolf package I’m submitting depends on these WASM 
packages; other Firefox-derived browsers currently in Guix don’t 
(because they can’t, because the toolchain isn’t in Guix).


> That would make the Librewolf review shorter and easier, and the 
> Wasm
> review more consistent and easy to test.  Also, adding Wasm to 
> our
> Firefox based browsers would be a one-shot.  (Of course it 
> doesn't have
> to be included in Icecat, but I think it would be great to have 
> it in
> ‘make-torbrowser’.)
>

I’m not sure what you mean by "adding Wasm to our Firefox based 
browsers would be a one-shot."  Are you saying you want a process 
like:

1a. Get wasm toolchain stuff merged.
1b. Get Librewolf merged without WASM sandboxing.
2. Update icecat, torbrowser, mullvad, and librewolf to use WASM 
sandboxing.

Thanks,

  — Ian

[1]: See 
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/02/securing-firefox-with-webassembly/ 
and 
https://blog.mozilla.org/attack-and-defense/2021/12/06/webassembly-and-back-again-fine-grained-sandboxing-in-firefox-95/ 
for more on this.