lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:54:43 +0000
From:   Dmitry Goldin <dgoldin@...tonmail.ch>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel\\\\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "joel\\\\@joelfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kheaders: making headers archive reproducible

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 10:14 AM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:07 PM Dmitry Goldin dgoldin@...tonmail.ch wrote:
>
> > Hmm. --sort was introduced in 1.28 in 2014. Do you think it would warrant some sort of version check and fallback or is this something we can expect the user to handle if their distribution happens to not ship anything more recent? A few sensible workarounds come to mind.
>
> I think the former.

After pondering it briefly, maybe substituting the option is a bit less hassle than checking for
the version and then degrading to a possibly non-reproducible archive.

Maybe we could go with something like the sketch below to replace --sort=name. That is, if
that's the only problematic flag.

find $cpio_dir -printf "%P\n" | LC_ALL=C sort | \
    tar "${KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP:+--mtime=$KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP}" \
    --owner=0 --group=0 --numeric-owner \
    -Jcf $tarfile -C $cpio_dir/ -T - > /dev/null

I will look at this a bit more closely and give it a test-run later today or early tomorrow. Then we can decide if its sufficient before submitting another patch. Other suggestions and pointers are welcome, of course.

--
Best regards,
    Dmitry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ