From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V1pJj-0002gv-1Z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:00:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.173; envelope-from=showard314@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V1pJi-0002m4-48 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:00:43 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id bv13so1572277pdb.32 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.131.68 with SMTP id ok4mr40102347pbb.146.1374634836218; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.15.66 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201307232226.52434.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201307232226.52434.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:00:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Scott Howard To: Luke-Jr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.173 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (showard314[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (showard314[at]gmail.com) -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1V1pJi-0002m4-48 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Debian Bitcoin Packaging Team Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:00:43 -0000 On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > This means a lot of additional work for the > maintainers of the library packages, and the security team; for example, the > security team must understand that they *cannot* deploy a critical security > bugfix to LevelDB until someone competent has reviewed that it is > behaviourally (including bug behaviours!) compatible with the versions in use > everywhere else/previously. I think it is likely all this additional > work/delays will be considered unacceptable to your library/security teams, > thus using the bundled/embedded LevelDB is probably the best solution. The above is a key point, lukejr addressed it well "I think it is likely all this additional work/delays will be considered unacceptable to your library/security teams, thus using the bundled/embedded LevelDB is probably the best solution." >> MIPS has been failing recently, but no one has looked into it yet. >> Perhaps it's not worth developers efforts yet, but at some point the >> technology should reach a point it can be redistributed. > > MIPS (and any other big endian architecture) has *always* failed on the > Satoshi codebase, and will not be supported until someone has time to dedicate > to fixing the numerous little-endian assumptions in the code. I have an > incomplete port, but it isn't very high on my priority list to figure out what > else it's missing. To be clear, bitcoind/bitcoin-qt is only built on little endian machines https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=bitcoin > Debian could probably get away with packaging Bitcoin-Qt and bitcoind as-is > with no modifications, and not have any problems. It's only when you begin > making modifications that it becomes a problem. There are also some concerns > that it puts a much larger price on compromising Debian's build servers and/or > repositories (suddenly the attacker can steal a LOT of money). The only current modification is to use system leveldb instead of the packaged leveldb. (There is also a patch porting libmemenv.a to several other architectures, but that is only used in test suites - so it shouldn't pose a risk to users). > > The official binaries are not simply built by upstream developers: using > Gitian, *anyone* can produce bit-for-bit identical binaries. Official releases > are only published after 3 or more people have done an independent compile and > signed the output. It would be excellent if the whole of Debian could work > toward achieving this level of security eventually, which would make > distributing Bitcoin node software much safer as well. Ironically, debian (in general) doesn't trust upstream security maintenance of third part libraries - that's why they typically get dropped in favor of use system libraries. In this case, upstream doesn't trust (rightfully) that some future debian security team bug fix to a stable library won't be tested properly against bitcoin, causing problems for users (since bitcoin might expect buggy library behavior). I'm not the original packager or maintainer - I just came across the package in really bad shape and helped bring it to something reasonable and have done the most recent uploads (since 0.8, I believe). Since updated libraries could pose a security risk because bitcoin may expect buggy behavior, I think that is a good argument for debian to use the included library. However, I'm just a recent helper - I still want to hear what people who have been doing this for longer think. ~Scott