From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id sjsVMSCYa2Az0wAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 01:07:12 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id 4NoLKiCYa2AiNwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:07:12 +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 1E912D957 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 01:07:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46248 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYJK-00040y-T2 for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:07:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53316) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYJD-00040s-UO for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:07:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55549) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYJD-0001Jn-NQ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:07:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYJC-0002DL-Hl for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:07:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#33848: Store references in SBCL-compiled code are "invisible" Resent-From: Mark H Weaver Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:07:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 33848 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 33848-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B33848.16176639998477 (code B ref 33848); Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:07:02 +0000 Received: (at 33848) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2021 23:06:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38862 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYIo-0002Ce-Mk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:06:38 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:44152) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYIm-0002CP-MV for 33848@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:06:37 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lTYIg-0005vv-9X; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:06:30 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver In-Reply-To: <87ft04sefs.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87r2e8jpfx.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1juaomo.fsf@gnu.org> <87muoqhk62.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhsq8wkj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0pmhbgn.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r2e28tkv.fsf@gnu.org> <874laygkiy.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87lfa5eymf.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tuoscsk9.fsf@gnu.org> <87im57b8u7.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87czvebky2.fsf@netris.org> <87eefu30a4.fsf@gnu.org> <87im56l6es.fsf@yamatai> <87wntm8j18.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87a6qil4b1.fsf@yamatai> <87a6qiz5b3.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <871rbtc3j5.fsf@netris.org> <87r1js9udv.fsf@netris.org> <87sg47vp16.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <875z139liy.fsf@netris.org> <87ft04sefs.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:04:44 -0400 Message-ID: <8735w472oo.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Pierre Neidhardt , 33848@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1617664032; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=dNMF+fEoSM9fDeWHxrPUVv/yn8R6TYQvL4bYSlcDcFU=; b=Wo2M+UBjvMsu+nMmWpjqFGAXTOmRYgXDUa7LG2E5RXBw+Mfgd/6vaDVcf4taMuvhoiNeI2 JzBSGBq/DJ64EFBFkydeoq3TFuaXBdQIxN5wLNqh95opZOh8e36cQgUj2TYOifxxP0EQCq sHJ7GBk++YFgSSdV19vYBHw0mCN7TGqmUZVAwDDINW18bmPCNCdes3ZUd/g4F9hly/guBE u/0fmaPiv4KTEnMtLBTiZg15BuqGxrrvxGugidFp1gfvP3gFjpeobzoHt+izkTk/DurUyh WpnQD1HN+KlZ5LahxDJ0rqLbPXJj19QrGNXpyKhKn7KJtVbK1ZNDzGCzO8tr5A== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1617664032; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=CUXtyGAEHxadmztulomM0lT2I8sFRIvjMXxJZWI2fCjk6QtCvGMnuZLRqhtDW8MsIEpyt3 lhtNv+WJ+KXb6ap7nEmJC27omr/Yx3SzOU4C4sTa3RbXsOb785oTQAO0f5/Rv9WYLUoR35 4RDOi335CBAwqpgDydOgDeO13AyiCMgwvJ8r8kKUhLVBCScF5vzcg3maW52tDa369MKpF4 VIL8CGRdxTBzngofe6TkWS2fDoY/gFCslb4GcocVj80iCvaV1qcnd0AUpXFgPAvvsV8uCa OZSXBXzPlp0GinFARKd/QEGcWoMxMLG4TvYPrNn89WF52c59HfQq0W77G7h2BA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=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-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.44 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-Migadu-Queue-Id: 1E912D957 X-Spam-Score: -2.44 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: AFRZ99gJhZPE Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> With this patch applied, all graft derivations will be rebuilt, but >> *only* grafts. When it's ready (i.e. when it has better comments, >> docstrings, etc), this change is perfectly appropriate for 'master'. > > The GC=E2=80=99s scanner still gets it wrong though. I wonder whether ha= ving > the grafting code more capable than the scanner could lead to bad > surprises. WDYT? I've thought about it, and I've been unable to think of any disadvantage to making the grafter more capable than the scanner. It seems to me a pure win. That the scanner fails to find all references is clearly an important problem that should be fixed ASAP, but as far as I can tell, improving the grafter would not make that problem any worse or create any new problems. Improving the grafter should have the following effects: (1) Reducing the number of cases where ungrafted code with security flaws is being used on our systems. (2) Fixing problems in our Fish, Nyxt, and Common Lisp packages. Improving the scanner, or adding phases to selected packages or build systems to copy hidden references to an ASCII file, should have the following effects: (1) Reducing the number of cases where run-time dependencies are not known to Guix, which could lead to dependencies being prematurely GC'd or excluded from things like "guix pack". So, it seems to me that we should persue both of these improvements concurrently, and I see no practical advantage to postponing one for the sake of rolling them both out at the same time. Of course, I welcome other opinions on this. What do you think? Thanks, Mark