Theo, Thanks for your explanations. I appreciate the efforts of you and your colleagues in keeping OpenBSD as up to date and secure as possible. That is one of the main reasons I am using it.
Dave Raymond On 4/12/20, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote: > Raymond, David <david.raym...@nmt.edu> wrote: > >> That said, I am a bit nervous about OpenBSD's lags in >> keeping up with browser security fixes. > > It isn't that simple. > > They don't ship security fixes standalone. Instead, they ship a mix of > new changes *and* fixes. Lots of new unrelated changes, and only a few > security fixes. These fixes cannot be plausibly seperated out, as doing > such a seperate procedure would increase the development workload, and > increase the update lag. So instead this software is accepted from > mainstream > on the assumption of their best effort, and then the following happens: > > The large changesets requires evaluation and verification, to ensure it > still works with the pledge/unveil changes. The pledge/unveil changes > introduce a tighter sandbox than other operating systems have. Quite > often, upstream performs operations in the wrong order, and robert finds > this out during test. This friction slows the development a little. > > But I believe you are completely wrong about how long this lag is. > You are being inaccurate because you don't know, and making it sound > like the lagg is many months. > > 81.0.4044.92 came out 5 days ago, and here you can see it enter the ports > tree 2 days ago. > > 1 hour ago it was replaced with a newer update. > > date: 2020/04/10 18:51:30; author: robert > update to 81.0.4044.92; > date: 2020/04/03 13:44:40; author: robert > update to 80.0.3987.163 > date: 2020/04/01 12:32:05; author: robert > update to chromium-80.0.3987.162; > date: 2020/03/21 14:08:01; author: robert > update to 80.0.3987.149 and apply the following changes: > date: 2020/03/11 23:57:03; author: espie > date: 2020/03/04 15:44:17; author: robert > update to 80.0.3987.132 and fix the component flavor while here > date: 2020/02/22 12:33:20; author: robert > update to 80.0.3987.116; > date: 2020/01/17 20:43:38; author: robert > update to 79.0.3945.130 > date: 2020/01/08 14:43:32; author: robert > update to 79.0.3945.117 > date: 2019/12/18 09:01:35; author: robert > update to 79.0.3945.88 > date: 2019/12/15 12:03:46; author: robert > update to 79.0.3945.79 > date: 2019/11/20 18:26:30; author: robert > update to 78.0.3904.106 > date: 2019/11/07 10:47:41; author: robert > update to 78.0.3904.97 > date: 2019/11/05 22:30:26; author: robert > update to 78.0.3904.87 > date: 2019/10/22 18:35:43; author: robert > update to 77.0.3865.120 and make sure to use HW_NCPUONLINE instead of > HW_NCPU > > You can pick through that list and compare the dates to the > pledge/unveil adaptations commited into the tree. It appears to move > very rapidly, more rapidly than the average port. The changes don't > neccessarily make it into -stable and -stable packages, but *we never > promised that*, and this specific pledge/unveil-using application is now > using API that didn't exist in 6.6. > >> (I'm not criticizing -- I understand that ... > > Yes, you are are criticizing. And with inaccurate statements. And you > are wrong about there being a lagg. By telling the world the chromium > openbsd effort is "slow", you are being an innaccurate downer. > -- David J. Raymond david.raym...@nmt.edu http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond
