[pkg-go] [pkg-golang-devel] Security support for packages written in Go

[Michael Stapelberg]

Thanks for the patch, it’s now merged and uploaded.

I’d prefer if you could send such patches in a bug report instead of to
mailing lists which I don’t actively read :). In fact, I’d say it’s long
overdue to make this package team-maintained. The repository is already in
collab-maint, so if you want to make the necessary changes, please just go
ahead.

With regards to the original post, I think we have the same issue that the
haskell packaging community has, since they have the same linking model.
I’ve talked to Joachim Breitner (nomeata) about this a couple years ago and
he mentioned they have some tooling which addresses the issue in a
sufficient way.

I’d suggest to tackle the problem the same way for Go, and maybe share some
tools if applicable. That said, I won’t have time or motivation to do any
of the work required for this, so volunteers are very welcome.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hudson at canonical.com> wrote:

> On 13 April 2016 at 21:05, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> <michael.hudson at canonical.com> wrote:
> > On 13 April 2016 at 17:07, Tianon Gravi <admwiggin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12 April 2016 at 21:39, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> >> <michael.hudson at canonical.com> wrote:
> >>> We could do it without 1) and the consequent re-uploading of every go
> >>> library by using dpkg-query --search a lot, which would be slow I
> >>> guess, but maybe could be done as a fallback?
> >>
> >> I still asking dpkg about file/directory package ownership should be
> >> our primary means of generating this field -- the metadata that dpkg
> >> itself tracks about "which package provided
> >> /usr/share/gocode/src/abc/xyz which I just compiled against" will
> >> always be correct (due to the fact that it really is the single proper
> >> source of truth for such information), where some arbitrary metadata
> >> we add not only clutters up the package metadata as has been
> >> discussed, but much more importantly will have a tendency to "drift"
> >> from the truth, which is something that IMO we shouldn't tolerate for
> >> a field whose primary purpose is knowing when it's necessary to
> >> rebuild, especially for security fixes.  Even for really large
> >> packages like Docker (to choose an example that I know off the top of
> >> my head is reasonably hefty WRT deps) we're only talking about maybe
> >> ~200 of these queries at the outside end, and only at build-time, and
> >> only once per build, which IMO is in the realm of reasonable to avoid
> >> yet again uploading a minor fix to every package (moving the metadata
> >> over to the binary packages when we still haven't added the existing
> >> source package metadata to all of them yet) with information that will
> >> have a potential for drifting from the truth or for being too limited
> >> (single package providing multiple namespaces after a repo move, for
> >> example).
> >
> > Yes, all that seems fair. Something like this?
> > http://paste.ubuntu.com/15806327/ -- it's pretty terrible perl, but
> > it's actually arguably simpler than what dh_golang does already!
>
> FWIW, I sent a better version of this patch:
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/Week-of-Mon-20160411/004304.html
>
> Cheers,
> mwh
>



-- 
Best regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20160414/24d86889/attachment.html>