Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

memorysafety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#11

Post by jacquesm »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #8
garblegarble wrote: post #3

I'm assuming this project's aim is to replace sudo, in which case hand-waving away "Leaving out less commonly used features" is a bit worrying. What are these features? How uncommonly are they used? In which way will it fail if a configuration uses those features? Edit: Looks like their github readme outlines some of these limitations, https://github.com/memorysafety/sudo-rs#differences-from-ori...

I've lived through the transition to systemd. I'm sure sysadmins will be able to manage this one. And I'm sure great technical documentation exists, this was a PR release, not where I'd look for a list of missing features.

I still run into trouble on a fairly regular basis on account of systemd. Especially the log files continue to cause all kinds of issues.

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#12

Post by happymellon »

jacquesm wrote: post #11
SonOfLilit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived through the transition to systemd. I'm sure sysadmins will be able to manage this one. And I'm sure great technical documentation exists, this was a PR release, not where I'd look for a list of missing features.

I still run into trouble on a fairly regular basis on account of systemd. Especially the log files continue to cause all kinds of issues.

What issues do you run into with the log files?

I have plenty of ideological problems with the design of the logs, but not actually ran into problems in the real world.

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#13

Post by Nullabillity »

fdsfsdfdsffgg wrote: post #5

> Apache-2.0+MIT vs GPL-2.0 So, you may get a memory-safe su/sudo-rs, but those who distribute it in a binary form won't be obliged to show you the source code it was built from (potentially including some modifications).

Sudo is ISC-ish[0] (very permissive), not GPL. Su does indeed seem to be GPL though.

[0]: https://www.sudo.ws/about/license/

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#14

Post by zigzag312 »

fdsfsdfdsffgg wrote: post #5

> Apache-2.0+MIT vs GPL-2.0 So, you may get a memory-safe su/sudo-rs, but those who distribute it in a binary form won't be obliged to show you the source code it was built from (potentially including some modifications).

Is that really bad? You are free to not use such distributions.

Regarding security, malicious actor could show you a different source code from what he distributes in a binary form. GPL or no GPL.

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#15

Post by alwayslikethis »

fdsfsdfdsffgg wrote: post #5

> Apache-2.0+MIT vs GPL-2.0 So, you may get a memory-safe su/sudo-rs, but those who distribute it in a binary form won't be obliged to show you the source code it was built from (potentially including some modifications).

I wanted to write this comment too, as I have a serious concern that the effort to displace GPL tools with Rust rewrites in MIT/Apache will one day lead to a proprietary Linux, but the original sudo is not in GPL. It's in an ISC/MIT style license [1].

1. https://www.sudo.ws/about/license/

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#16

Post by garblegarble »

fermuch wrote: post #6
garblegarble wrote: post #3

I'm assuming this project's aim is to replace sudo, in which case hand-waving away "Leaving out less commonly used features" is a bit worrying. What are these features? How uncommonly are they used? In which way will it fail if a configuration uses those features? Edit: Looks like their github readme outlines some of these limitations, https://github.com/memorysafety/sudo-rs#differences-from-ori...

It seems like those changes are noted here: https://github.com/memorysafety/sudo-rs#differences-from-ori...

The text seems to imply that's not a list of features not implemented, it's a list of features not implemented that don't output a clear error

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#17

Post by mhh__ »

wiz21c wrote: post #9
fdsfsdfdsffgg wrote: post #5

> Apache-2.0+MIT vs GPL-2.0 So, you may get a memory-safe su/sudo-rs, but those who distribute it in a binary form won't be obliged to show you the source code it was built from (potentially including some modifications).

Moving away from the GPL is a very bad idea for such critical component. Exactly for the reason you give. (this post is just here to insist on the issue)

In general a lot of "[GNU tool] but in rust" projects do seem to come very close to violating the GPL, especially in spirit.

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#18

Post by EspressoGPT »

zigzag312 wrote: post #14
fdsfsdfdsffgg wrote: post #5

> Apache-2.0+MIT vs GPL-2.0 So, you may get a memory-safe su/sudo-rs, but those who distribute it in a binary form won't be obliged to show you the source code it was built from (potentially including some modifications).

Is that really bad? You are free to not use such distributions. Regarding security, malicious actor could show you a different source code from what he distributes in a binary form. GPL or no GPL.

> Is that really bad? You are free to not use such distributions.

It's not really bad but it kinda defeats the purpose.

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#19

Post by mprovost »

garblegarble wrote: post #10
dtx1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having so many different feeatures in one of the most basic unix tools is much more of a red flag.

For sure! But that mistake has already been made, and has been in the wild for years, so removing those features (and proposing yourself as a replacement for the original) is now a breaking change

OpenBSD replaced sudo with doas (with a vastly reduced feature set) several years ago, and without breaking everything. Sure there are use cases where you absolutely need some feature of sudo, but you can always install it.

Re: The first stable release of a memory safe sudo implementation

#20

Post by gary_0 »

garblegarble wrote: post #3

I'm assuming this project's aim is to replace sudo, in which case hand-waving away "Leaving out less commonly used features" is a bit worrying. What are these features? How uncommonly are they used? In which way will it fail if a configuration uses those features? Edit: Looks like their github readme outlines some of these limitations, https://github.com/memorysafety/sudo-rs#differences-from-ori...

One feature they didn't mention they left out was the ability to run `make me a sandwich` (https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/blob/main/Makefile.in#L...)
Post reply on HN