the HARE_TD_<files> are the "typedef" files, basically the equivalent
to C headers, but automatically generated by the compiler so we can
do resolution of types/functions/etc. in dependencies without having
to look at the source files themselves.
i doubt that anyone is ever going to make use of more than 125 imports.
the problem is that i cannot simply restict that to one folder. they
could be anywhere (even though they are not usually). that'd complicate
the patch a lot for... allowing more than 125 imports?
the error message will not be particularly hard to read; i guess if
someone really hits the limit, we can do something about it then?
we don't want to do anything in upstream harec because we want to
keep it to the POSIX subset.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:29:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Tobias Heider <tobias.hei...@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> > I think unveil might still be useful.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > As I understand Theo the problem is just that calling unveil per-input file
> > to grant
> > read access won't work. Restricting write and create permissions to the
> > single
> > well-known output directory still makes sense to me.
> >
> > >
> > > The set of library functions used is pretty small, so it should be easy
> > > enough to reason about adding pledge.
> > >
> > > $ nm -s /usr/local/bin/harec | awk '/^ *U / { print $2 }' | column
> > > __assert2 atexit fseek memset strerror
> > > __errno bsearch fstat open_memstream strlen
> > > __isinf calloc getenv optarg strncmp
> > > __isinff exit getline optind strtod
> > > __isinfl fclose getopt perror strtoul
> > > __isnan feof isalnum qsort
> > > strtoumax
> > > __isnanf fgetc isalpha realloc vfprintf
> > > __isnanl fileno isatty snprintf vsnprintf
> > > __isthreaded fmemopen isdigit stat
> > > __sF fopen isprint strchr
> > > _csu_finish fread memcmp strcmp
> > > abort free memcpy strdup
> > >
>
> So the undocumented, un-exported, unveil limit today is 128. This comes
> with a cost, so we will not be increasing it.
>
> Enough setenv, enough arguments, and it fails. Now how does someone
> "workaround"
> it in their build tooling?
>
> THAT "workaround" is what makes the solution.
>
> This is not what unveil is intended to support.
