From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: Re: ISO image available for testing!
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:52:08 -0500
Message-ID: <87bmjcvft3.fsf@netris.org>
References: <877f16z9eo.fsf@gnu.org> <87infv54m3.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87efqgnn7x.fsf@elephly.net> <878teo59tb.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20171201183042.GB2504@jasmine.lan> <87tvxadz11.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87lgiirhsf.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <874lp618iy.fsf@cbaines.net>
	<87shcoaj2w.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50894)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1eMNwt-0006Bw-Lc
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:52:32 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1eMNwq-0007bL-K8
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:52:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87shcoaj2w.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 05 Dec 2017 23:47:03 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hi Ludovic,

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
> 91c9b5d01 * packages: 'package-grafts' trims native inputs.

[...]

> Long story short: we were flagging native inputs as potential sources of
> grafts even though, by definition, native inputs are not referred to at
> run time.

I agree that this *should* never happen, but I see little reason for
confidence that it never happens in actual fact.

What would happen if a reference to a native-input *was* present in the
build outputs?  The reason I ask is that, for security reasons, it's
obviously very important to reliably avoid using ungrafted software at
run time.

I'm concerned that this recent change could cause minor
nearly-undetectable packaging mistakes to become major security holes.

One solution would be to explicitly check build outputs for references
to native-inputs, and to force a build failure in that case.

What do you think?

    Regards,
      Mark