Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

Post by Bender » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #29

Bender wrote: post #18

The actual work of porting is matching the security features provided by OpenBSD's pledge(2) and unveil(2). These are critical elements to the functionality of the system. Without them, your system accepts arbitrary data from the public network. https://justine.lol/pledge/ I am not seeing pledge on Alpine Linux in edge. Have people been testing Pledge on Linux? Did I perhaps misunderstand the risk of using Openrsync…

From above your quote: > The only officially-supported operating system is OpenBSD, as this has considerable security features. And below your quote: > This is possible (I think?) with FreeBSD's Capsicum, but Linux's security facilities are a mess, and will take an expert hand to properly secure. It is portable in the sense that it compiles and runs, not in the sense that it has the same security features. I'd love t…

Post by kennywinker » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:16 PM UTC

KZerda wrote: post #21

kennywinker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not the paradox of tolerance restated in different terms? BSD license is unrestricted, it tolerates taking open source and closing it, thus always being at risk of things closing down. GPL license doesn’t tolerate taking from open source and closing it, thus ensuring things stay open.

The BSD license is why we have Valkey and not a purely closed-source Redis. It would have been much easier to perform the rugpull if Redis had initially been GPLed.

Post by KZerda » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:24 PM UTC

badreligion42 wrote: post #27

KZerda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BSD license is why we have Valkey and not a purely closed-source Redis. It would have been much easier to perform the rugpull if Redis had initially been GPLed.

And how exactly did the BSD license make creating Valkey easier? GPL and BSD licenses both have the source in the open. Anyone creating a fork, can easily do so for either BSD or GPL licensed projects. Since Redis is a database, which the user won't be using a binary of, even using a fork of a supposedly GPL-licensed Redis would not require you to share your modifications with your user, same as BSD.

Post by skeledrew » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:26 PM UTC

gilrain wrote: post #13

ranger_danger wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And GNU folks would say the GPL is actually the more open choice because it forces the project to stay open. Two different ways of thinking about it I guess... it's nice to have choices and I don't think one is more or less "correct", more a matter of opinion/taste I guess.

> more open choice because it forces the project A true morality must be based on consent, not coercion. Humanity may not be there yet, and therein lies the argument for force (and thus copyleft); but the ultimate goal should always be to reduce its necessity.

Post by cperciva » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:28 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #28

rsync has specific running modes for the super-user. It also pumps arbitrary data from the network onto your file-system. openrsync is about 10 000 lines of C code: do you trust me not to make mistakes? No, but that's why almost nobody runs it outside of strict trust boundaries. This security section would make more sense if rsync was like curl, which routinely deals with hostile counterparties. If the other side of…