From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:09:32 +0200
Message-ID: <87h9nfvc37.fsf@igalia.com>
References: <87vbcnb2vp.fsf@igalia.com> <871tfapi6h.fsf@netris.org>
	<877fp25j6g.fsf@igalia.com> <87egj0k0ld.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87bne26h9b.fsf@gnu.org> <87zj18h858.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
	<87egijx352.fsf@igalia.com> <87a8t7brux.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]:41705)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@igalia.com>) id 1ZWOqD-0001tl-RL
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:09:47 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@igalia.com>) id 1ZWOq9-0001eS-PH
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:09:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87a8t7brux.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?=
	=?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:49:10 +0200")
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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Mon 31 Aug 2015 13:49, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> skribis:
>
>> On Sun 30 Aug 2015 21:46, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>>
>>> The binary format for locales is dependent on the libc version.  Over
>>> the last few releases, it turned out to be compatible, but that of 2.22
>>> differs from that of 2.21 (a new element was added to locale categories,
>>> according to ChangeLog.)
>>
>> Does this amount to a binary-incompatible change to libc?  I guess not
>> if you make sure that if you had a statically linked binary, that you
>> set LOCPATH appropriately....
>>
>> What if we built bootstrap binaries to statically link their LOCPATH ?
>> Is that even possible?
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think locale data can be embedded in binaries.  Also, it=
=E2=80=99s a
> good strategy to avoid rebuilding the bootstrap binaries as much as
> possible, as it intuitively suggests that a Thompson attack is unlikely.

Sorry, I meant to say: why not prevent LOCPATH from being overridden on
bootstrap binaries?  Right now they are effectively dynamically linked
to their locale data.  A nice fix would be to statically link them to
their locale data.

A