Bug#880638: release-notes: Document apt sandbox support [buster]
Joost van Baal-Ilić:
> Hi Niels,
> Thanks for your bugreport!
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 07:37:12AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Package: release-notes
>> Severity: wishlist
>> --- News for apt (libapt-pkg5.0 libapt-inst2.0) ---
>> apt (1.6~alpha1) unstable; urgency=medium
>> All methods provided by apt except for cdrom, gpgv, and rsh now
>> use seccomp-BPF sandboxing to restrict the list of allowed system
>> calls, and trap all others with a SIGSYS signal. Three options
>> can be used to configure this further:
>> APT::Sandbox::Seccomp is a boolean to turn it on/off
>> APT::Sandbox::Seccomp::Trap is a list of names of more syscalls to trap
>> APT::Sandbox::Seccomp::Allow is a list of names of more syscalls to allow
>> Also, sandboxing is now enabled for the mirror method.
>> -- Julian Andres Klode <email@example.com> Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:58:18 +0200
>> Seems like it would be prudent to mention that in the release-notes
>> for buster.
> Are https and debtorrent "methods provided by apt", or are these methods
> shipped in other optional packages and not yet sandboxed?
The https method is (now) provided directly by apt and is covered by the
sandboxing (implementation-detail: It is in fact the same binary as the
As for debtorrent: I /think/ it is a "third-party" method (from apt's
PoV) and therefore not covered by the built-in rules. CC'ing deity to
> Is the mirror method now using the same sandboxing implementation?
That is my understanding.
> The text could be more clear; for some answers to these questions a proposed
> enhanced text is:
> All methods provided by apt (e.g. http, https, debtorrent, ...) except for
> cdrom, gpgv, and rsh now use seccomp-BPF sandboxing as supplied by the Linux
> kernel to restrict the list of allowed system calls, and trap all others with a
> SIGSYS signal.
> Also, this sandboxing is now enabled for the mirror method.
As per above, I think it need a s/debtorrent, //.
I was also wondering whether we should document it in "whats-new" or
"issues". The latter clearly makes sense as it can cause issues that
people need to know how to solve. On the other side, I think it would
be nice to document that apt has been hardened even further (and that,
IMO, would fit "Whats new" better than "Issues").