Hacker News Reader

Comment by uecker | Hacker News Reader

Huh, the code with a dot is not legal C. It is CMake issue that the test breaks here.

That’s what makes this so clever: these systems were born in the era where you couldn’t trust anything - compilers sometimes emitted buggy code, operating systems would claim to be Unix but had weird inconsistencies on everything from system calls to command line tool arguments, etc. - so they just try to compile a test script and if it fails assume that the feature isn’t supported. This is extremely easy to miss since the tool is working as it’s designed and since it’s running tons of stuff there’s a ton of noise to sort through to realize that something which failed was supposed to have worked.

You could just run tests for the feature detection on a known system or a dozen(VMs are cheap). The big problem is that most code is not tested at all or test errors are flat out ignored.

Nothing “just” about it. VMs weren’t cheap when the C world started using autoconf - that was a feature mostly known on IBM mainframes – and in any case that couldn’t do what you need. The goal is not to figure out what’s there on systems _you_ control, it’s to figure out what is actually available on the systems other users are building on. Think about just this library, for example, your dozen VMs wouldn’t even be enough to cover modern Linux much less other platforms but even if it was (drop most architectures and only support the latest stable versions for the sake of argument), you’d still need to build some reliable prober for a particular bug or odd configuration.

The problem here wasn’t the concept of feature detection but that it was sabotaged by someone trusted and easily missed in the noise of other work. What was needed was someone very carefully reviewing that commit or build output to notice that the lockdown feature was being disabled on systems where it was fully enabled, and we already know that maintainer time was in short supply. Any other approach would likely have failed because the attacker would have used the same plausible sounding language to explain why it needed to be a complicated dynamic check.

The goal is to figure out if the optional features work at all. For that a system you control is required.

That the sabotage worked at all relied on the fact that nobody was testing those features.

How secure is a sandbox that may not even exist? Apparently its good enough for most.

That's kind of the point. It's feature detection code. If the code cleanly compiles, the feature is assumed supported, otherwise, it's assumed not present/functional. This pretty common with autotools. The gotcha here is this innocuous period is not supposed to be syntactically valid. It's meant to be subtle and always disable the feature.

Shouldn't whatever is depending on xz supporting landlock be verifying that it's the case through blackbox tests or something? Otherwise a check like this even without the bug could end up disabling landlock if e.g. the compiler environment was such that a given header wasn't available...

Yes, this is intentionally how autoconf is supposed to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com