From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id mE7MFeiuMmA9AgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:05:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 0EKfEeiuMmCQIgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:05:12 +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 93E0E1850F for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:05:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:58472 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDu2Y-0004eZ-Hs for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:05:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDu2Q-0004eQ-85 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:05:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43328) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDu2P-0007SZ-Ti for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:05:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDu2P-0003em-O2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:05:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#45344] [Patch 0/2] Libwaive for signify Resent-From: Leo Famulari Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:05:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 45344 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Vincent Legoll Cc: 45344@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 45344-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B45344.161393425714004 (code B ref 45344); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:05:01 +0000 Received: (at 45344) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Feb 2021 19:04:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54874 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDu1h-0003do-Go for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:17 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:49351) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lDu1d-0003dX-Kg for 45344@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:16 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778E05C0092; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=NXDNsjYuwateSd5dExbjEnN0 zp9SxylyU4j89gDQ4Lc=; b=PQ85qITQbHaiSHH5RDPNhuoWWSjTQ4l9TEczBmP3 OLCBPU25HfV8m4rvSByKBeXclmLbGbxddBYbseuGO13rwS32RFCOHSBBbV7wRPgQ TjBpmld1x+eEOBGRPaFVHRlPtKsz3igJ2igBaMNZ4OoGTTZ1Feqt49RkAesiOAMN hJY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=NXDNsj YuwateSd5dExbjEnN0zp9SxylyU4j89gDQ4Lc=; b=She2hhRS9QjdfsDW+11N+f USstG29RgGYrH2jg35Lb/TgoKUiBxEgy6coLOpLYg50sAhp6sD6Dd6WzdihPUsun x8Vsp94Ae3BxIJL8A72R/5sRhAubtVNgk9Uas47IXRF8dcH3Hcj57n6jsEF8pUFt yDRJbi1n6EY+8qladRaDOXqDEwuUx9iJ4JvpqXSkb7ICBdXpV0PcySNRwYm4nAE6 INsxK95uafScHueLwiLuOSsywsp6HbqLfDHtTuc6FokVecbEC4oaiQHh/t3o4shm cO/T/Z5gqO3UPOz4d+D6Vitgu26gTTSVlVgaYnqAcZO/oYFRTVfxd6Ax/vnnTw7w == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrkedugdduudekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeukeektdffvddtudegjeegtdevhfeufeeivdejiedtieegtdevjedvjeehffev gfenucfkphepieelrdduvddtrdelvddrvddtkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (ool-45785cd0.dyn.optonline.net [69.120.92.208]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 38357240057; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:04:04 -0500 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.37 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=famulari.name header.s=mesmtp header.b=PQ85qITQ; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=She2hhRS; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 93E0E1850F X-Spam-Score: -1.37 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: k2/jbjBJ1Sgz On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:55:16AM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:09 AM Leo Famulari wrote: > > I noticed that libwaive hasn't been active in a few years. I wonder if > > it's something we should pursue... > > libwaive is a single-file C (~300 LOCs [1]) source code library, I glanced over > it and it looks straightforward enough. I compared it to the seccomp manpage > [2] code samples and saw nothing suspicious. > > I think it may not have been updated for newly added syscalls, but that > should not make it unsecure, mainly because what is not explicitely allowed > is prevented from use (default-locked policy [3]). > > So, I'll wait for a bit more feedback before working on this, but I think > it may still be a worthwhile addition. > > WDYT ? I think you've done all the things a reviewer would ask for, so please proceed as you see fit :)