re: ld.elf_so sources [was Re: HEADS-UP: temporary security problem in today's NetBSD-current]

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:33:25AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> > 
> > the general idea is that kernel sources belong in src/sys, so they'll
> > move into there somewhere.  the userland .PATH will simply be modified
> > to suit.  the actual implementation details don't exist yet.
> 
> So libc sources that are also used by the kernel will get sucked into
> src/sys?  To me, even the reverse would be preferable.

we used to copy the sources from libc into the kernel to avoid
having to .PATH etc them in.

consolidating them into one place is great.

> > while i see the pain from your POV, there's a regular pain felt by
> > many people who get broken kernel builds when they forget to update
> > src/common when updating src/sys.  that's the real why.
> 
> I cannot understand why it is okay to break things for people who
> work carefully and (in the context of the current source organization)
> correctly in order to provide a crutch for people who have the bad habit
> of updating the source tree wrong.

it's easy for you to claim it's "wrong", but it is infact the way
that many people do things, and before src/common was magically
introduced without discussion, src/sys was complete.  the old
crypto framework was a different issue, but there were reasons it
existed and you'll note we got rid of it.

the goal is to return to this state.

> External teams working with NetBSD should be able to rely on some degree
> of stability in the source tree organization.  Making a major change like
> this to help people who inappropriately update part of the tree just seems
> very wrong.

so what you're saying is that mistakes are set in stone?  what we
have now is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

i'm having trouble understanding why this would present such a big
problem for any 3rd party user, even if they do modify the tree
in there.  there isn't even a full proposal on how it would look,
who knows, it might be as simple as applying a diff to a new tree.

should we go back to src/dist?

> If you want to give them a crutch, give them a CVS module that includes
> src/sys and src/common!

that's not going to help anyone.


.mrg.