Stories with Tag portability

• OpenBSD Innovations

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-22 22:08:42

  Verbose tl;dr

  OpenBSD has contributed significantly to operating system security and development through proactive approaches. These include innovations like memory safety mitigations such as W^X (preventing simultaneous write and execute permissions on memory pages) and pledge() (restricting system calls available to a process), advanced cryptography and randomization techniques, and extensive code auditing practices. The project also champions portable and reusable code, evident in the creation of OpenSSH, OpenNTPD, and other tools, which are now widely used across various platforms. Furthermore, OpenBSD emphasizes careful documentation and user-friendly features like the package management system, highlighting a commitment to both security and usability.

  The OpenBSD project, renowned for its proactive security approach, has contributed significantly to the broader computing landscape through numerous innovations. These innovations span a wide range of areas, from fundamental security practices to specific tools and technologies. The project champions a "secure by default" philosophy, prioritizing security in every design and implementation decision. This is manifest in practices like code audits, proactive vulnerability discovery and mitigation, and a strong focus on code correctness.

  A cornerstone of OpenBSD's security approach is its integrated toolset, designed for robust security auditing and proactive defense. This includes tools like systrace, which allows detailed monitoring and control of system calls, facilitating the identification of potentially malicious behavior. tcpdump, a widely used network packet analyzer, originated in OpenBSD and remains a critical tool for network security analysis. The OpenSSH secure shell implementation, a ubiquitous tool for secure remote access, is also a product of OpenBSD development and exemplifies the project's commitment to secure networking.

  Beyond individual tools, OpenBSD has pioneered several security technologies. The development of PF, a powerful and flexible packet filter firewall, has significantly improved network security management. pledge, a system call restriction mechanism, and unveil, a filesystem access control mechanism, allow applications to operate with reduced privileges, minimizing the potential impact of security vulnerabilities. These technologies represent a shift towards proactive security, limiting the damage potential of exploits.

  OpenBSD has also championed memory safety techniques. The project has actively explored and implemented techniques to mitigate memory corruption vulnerabilities, a common source of security flaws. These efforts include the use of memory allocation safeguards, such as the malloc implementations with embedded randomization and integrity checks. The development and integration of compiler-based security enhancements, such as the use of ProPolice for stack smashing protection, further reinforce the project's commitment to code security.

  Furthermore, OpenBSD has played a vital role in the development and promotion of cryptographic technologies. The project has actively integrated strong cryptographic algorithms and protocols into its core components and tools. This includes the development and maintenance of OpenBSD's own cryptographic framework, as well as contributions to wider open-source cryptographic libraries.

  In conclusion, the OpenBSD project's commitment to security has resulted in a wealth of innovations that have significantly impacted the wider computing world. Through proactive security practices, robust auditing tools, advanced security technologies, and a focus on code correctness, OpenBSD continues to contribute to a more secure computing environment for all.

  • OpenBSD
  • Operating System
  • Security
  • unix
  • BSD
  • innovations
  • features
  • Software
  • Technology
  • Open Source
  • pledge
  • unveil
  • Firewall
  • packet filter
  • pf
  • OpenSSH
  • LibreSSL
  • Bcrypt
  • security audits
  • code quality
  • portability

  Summary of Comments ( 287 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43143777

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss OpenBSD's historical focus on proactive security, praising its influence on other operating systems. Several commenters highlight OpenBSD's pledge ("secure by default") and the depth of its code audits, contrasting it favorably with Linux's reactive approach. Some debate the practicality of OpenBSD for everyday use, citing hardware compatibility challenges and a smaller software ecosystem. Others acknowledge these limitations but emphasize OpenBSD's value as a learning resource and a model for secure coding practices. The maintainability of its codebase and the project's commitment to simplicity are also lauded. A few users mention specific innovations like OpenSSH and CARP, while others appreciate the project's consistent philosophy and long-term vision.

  The Hacker News post titled "OpenBSD Innovations" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43143777) discussing the OpenBSD innovations page (https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html) has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which express admiration for OpenBSD's consistent focus on security, code correctness, and proactive development practices.

  Several commenters highlight OpenBSD's historical significance and influence on other operating systems and the wider software development community. They acknowledge features like pledge() and unveil() as pioneering security mechanisms that have inspired similar functionalities in other systems. The proactive approach of finding and fixing bugs before they become widespread vulnerabilities is also frequently praised, with commenters pointing to the project's dedication to code audits and their impressive track record.

  Some comments delve into specific technical details of OpenBSD's innovations, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of certain features. For example, the discussion around pledge() includes its effectiveness in limiting the potential damage of exploits and the challenges of adapting existing software to its constraints. The conversation around unveil() similarly explores the granular control it offers over file system access and the potential complexities it introduces for developers.

  A recurring theme is the contrast between OpenBSD's security-focused approach and the practices of other operating systems, often implicitly or explicitly referencing Linux. Some commenters suggest that while OpenBSD's strictness might be perceived as a barrier to entry or limit usability in certain contexts, it ultimately results in a more secure and robust system.

  While acknowledging OpenBSD's strengths, some comments also offer constructive criticism or point out potential areas for improvement. For instance, some users discuss the perceived limitations of OpenBSD's hardware support compared to other operating systems. Others express the wish for broader adoption of OpenBSD's security practices in the wider software ecosystem.

  Overall, the comments reflect a deep respect for the OpenBSD project and its contributions to computer security. While there are occasional critiques and nuanced discussions about specific features, the general sentiment is one of appreciation for OpenBSD's rigorous approach and the positive influence it has had on the industry.

• GNU Make Standard Library

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 07:30:59

  Verbose tl;dr

  The GNU Make Standard Library (GMSL) offers a collection of reusable Makefile functions designed to simplify common build tasks and promote best practices in GNU Make projects. It provides functions for tasks like finding files, managing dependencies, working with directories, handling shell commands, and more. By incorporating GMSL, Makefiles can become more concise, readable, and maintainable, reducing boilerplate and improving consistency across projects. The library is designed to be modular, allowing users to include only the functions they need.

  The GNU Make Standard Library (GMSL) project aims to provide a comprehensive collection of reusable Makefile functions and macros, effectively creating a standardized library for GNU Make. This addresses the common problem of Makefiles often being rewritten from scratch for each project, leading to duplicated effort, inconsistencies, and potential errors. GMSL strives to offer a solution by providing pre-built, tested, and documented building blocks that can be easily incorporated into various projects, promoting code reuse and maintainability.

  The library covers a wide range of functionalities typically required in Makefiles, including file system operations like creating directories, copying files, and recursively searching directories. It also provides functions for string manipulation, such as finding substrings and replacing text, as well as control flow utilities like conditional statements and loops. Furthermore, GMSL offers higher-level functionalities related to software development processes, including functions for compiling code, linking libraries, and generating documentation. This encompasses support for various programming languages and build systems.

  The library is designed with modularity in mind. Users can selectively include only the parts of the library they need, avoiding unnecessary overhead. This granular approach contributes to the flexibility and adaptability of GMSL across diverse project structures and requirements.

  A key aspect of GMSL is its focus on portability. The library is designed to work seamlessly across different operating systems and environments, minimizing the need for platform-specific modifications to Makefiles. This cross-platform compatibility is a significant advantage for projects targeting multiple platforms.

  Comprehensive documentation accompanies the library, detailing the purpose, usage, and parameters of each function and macro. This facilitates easy integration and understanding of the available functionalities. The documentation also likely includes examples demonstrating the practical application of various library components in real-world scenarios. The aim is to provide clear and accessible guidance for users leveraging GMSL in their projects.

  By offering a standardized and well-documented set of Makefile building blocks, GMSL strives to improve the overall efficiency and maintainability of Makefiles. It encourages best practices by promoting code reuse and reducing the likelihood of errors due to reinventing common functionalities. The library aims to be a valuable resource for developers working with GNU Make, simplifying the process of creating robust and portable build systems.

  • GNU Make
  • Makefile
  • build system
  • Standard Library
  • GMSL
  • shell scripting
  • Automation
  • Software Development
  • DevOps
  • Utility Library
  • portability
  • Cross-Platform
  • Code Reusability
  • Open Source

  Summary of Comments ( 69 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945146

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the GNU Make Standard Library (GMSL), mostly focusing on its potential usefulness and questioning its necessity. Some commenters appreciated the idea of standardized functions for common Make tasks, finding it could improve readability and reduce boilerplate. Others argued that existing solutions like shell scripts or including Makefiles suffice, viewing GMSL as adding unnecessary complexity. The discussion also touched upon the discoverability of such a library and whether the chosen license (GPLv3) would limit its adoption. Some expressed concern about the potential for GPLv3 to "infect" projects using the library. Finally, a few users pointed out alternatives like using a higher-level build system or other scripting languages to replace Make entirely.

  The Hacker News post titled "GNU Make Standard Library" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945146) has generated several comments discussing the utility and implementation of the library.

  One of the most compelling comments highlights the tension between wanting a standardized Make library and the existing diversity of Make implementations. The commenter expresses concern that relying on a specific library might limit the portability of Makefiles, especially given subtle differences in behavior across various Make versions. They suggest that while a standard library could be beneficial, ensuring compatibility across different Make implementations would be crucial for widespread adoption.

  Another commenter points out the challenge of implementing a truly portable library due to GNU Make's historical evolution and the resulting inconsistencies in its feature set. They emphasize that features like guile integration, though powerful, can further complicate the development of a universal library.

  The value of the library's functions, such as abspath, is also discussed. One commenter questions the necessity of such a function, arguing that similar functionality can be achieved through existing Make mechanisms. This sparks a discussion about the readability and maintainability benefits of using library functions, as opposed to relying on potentially more obscure Make syntax.

  Some commenters express their appreciation for the library, finding it useful and well-designed. They highlight its potential to improve the organization and maintainability of complex Makefiles. The ability to encapsulate common logic into reusable functions is seen as a significant advantage.

  The discussion also touches upon alternative approaches, like using shell scripts within Makefiles. While acknowledging the potential of shell scripts, commenters point out that integrating a dedicated Make library offers advantages in terms of consistency and code organization.

  Several comments delve into specific technical aspects, like the use of $(eval ...) and its implications for performance and debugging. Concerns about potential overhead and difficulties in tracing execution flow are raised. Suggestions for alternative implementation strategies are offered.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mixed reception to the GNU Make Standard Library. While many appreciate the potential benefits of standardized functions and improved code organization, concerns about portability, compatibility with different Make versions, and implementation details are also expressed. The discussion provides valuable insights into the complexities of developing and utilizing a standard library within the GNU Make ecosystem.

• The missing cross-platform OS API for timers

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-03 06:07:10

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post argues for a standardized, cross-platform OS API specifically designed for timers. Existing timer mechanisms, like POSIX's timerfd and Windows' CreateWaitableTimer, while useful, differ significantly across operating systems, complicating cross-platform development. The author proposes a new API with a consistent interface that abstracts away these platform-specific details. This ideal API would allow developers to create, arm, and disarm timers, specifying absolute or relative deadlines with optional periodic behavior, all while handling potential issues like early wake-ups gracefully. This would simplify codebases and improve portability for applications relying on precise timing across different operating systems.

  The blog post "The missing cross-platform OS API for timers" by Gaultier.github.io explores the challenges and complexities of implementing timers across different operating systems, arguing for a standardized, cross-platform OS-level API. The author begins by highlighting the ubiquitous need for timers in software development, from simple delays to complex scheduling tasks, and emphasizes the performance implications of timer accuracy and efficiency, especially in latency-sensitive applications like games and high-frequency trading.

  The post then dives into the intricacies of existing timer mechanisms on various operating systems. It describes how POSIX timers, while offering a relatively consistent interface on Unix-like systems, have limitations related to signal handling and potential issues with signal coalescing, where multiple timer expirations might be delivered as a single signal. On Windows, the author explains the different timer APIs available, such as CreateTimerQueueTimer and SetWaitableTimer, pointing out their specific strengths and weaknesses regarding precision, resource management, and complexity. The disparities between these platforms, the post argues, necessitate developers to write platform-specific code, increasing development time and introducing potential inconsistencies in behavior.

  The core proposal of the blog post is to introduce a new, unified OS-level API for timers that would abstract away the underlying platform differences. This proposed API should ideally offer features like high resolution, support for both one-shot and periodic timers, efficient callback mechanisms, and the ability to associate timers with specific threads or processes for better control and organization. The author suggests that this API could be implemented as a thin abstraction layer on top of existing OS mechanisms, allowing for efficient utilization of underlying hardware capabilities while presenting a consistent interface to developers. This would significantly simplify cross-platform development by eliminating the need for custom timer implementations and ensuring predictable behavior across different environments.

  Furthermore, the blog post discusses the potential benefits of such a standardized API, including improved code portability, reduced development costs, and enhanced performance. The author emphasizes how a well-designed API could facilitate the creation of more robust and efficient applications by providing developers with a reliable and easy-to-use timer mechanism. The post concludes with a call to action, encouraging operating system developers to consider the benefits of a unified timer API and collaborate on its design and implementation. The ultimate goal, the author states, is to empower developers with a powerful and versatile tool for managing time-related operations across various platforms, ultimately leading to better software.

  • Cross-Platform
  • Operating System
  • OS
  • API
  • timers
  • programming
  • Software Development
  • System Programming
  • portability
  • native code
  • C++
  • Rust
  • C
  • Low-Level Programming
  • concurrency
  • Asynchronous Programming
  • scheduling

  Summary of Comments ( 18 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42915437

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News comments discuss the complexities of cross-platform timer APIs, largely agreeing with the article's premise. Several commenters highlight the difficulties introduced by different operating systems' power management features, impacting timer accuracy and reliability. Specific challenges like signal coalescing and the lack of a unified interface for monotonic timers are mentioned. Some propose workarounds like busy-waiting for short durations or using platform-specific code for optimal performance. The need for a standardized API is reiterated, with suggestions for what such an API should offer, including considerations for power efficiency and different timer resolutions. One commenter points to the challenges of abstracting away hardware differences completely, suggesting the ideal solution may involve a combination of OS-level improvements and application-specific strategies.

  The Hacker News post "The missing cross-platform OS API for timers" generated several comments discussing the challenges and nuances of timer implementations across different operating systems.

  Several commenters highlighted the inherent difficulties in creating a truly cross-platform timer API due to the varying underlying mechanisms and priorities of each OS. One user pointed out the complexities introduced by power management, specifically how different systems handle timers during sleep or low-power states. This difference in behavior makes it difficult to abstract away the platform-specific details into a unified API. Another commenter echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that timers are often deeply integrated with the OS scheduler and power management, making a universal solution challenging. They also pointed to the trade-off between accuracy and power efficiency, which further complicates a cross-platform approach.

  The discussion also touched on the existing solutions and their limitations. One comment mentioned kqueue on macOS/BSD platforms and epoll on Linux, acknowledging their suitability for event-driven programming but also their lack of a direct cross-platform equivalent. The lack of a unified interface across these different mechanisms was reiterated by another commenter who emphasized the need to deal with distinct APIs and behaviors on each platform.

  Some commenters delved into specific use cases and challenges, such as dealing with high-resolution timers and the limitations imposed by system clock granularity. One commenter discussed the difficulties in achieving precise timing in JavaScript, citing the impact of browser event loops and garbage collection.

  The complexities of timer coalescing were also brought up. One commenter explained how operating systems might group timer events to reduce CPU wakeups and improve power efficiency, which can affect the precision of timer execution. Another commenter noted that this behavior can be unpredictable and difficult to account for in a cross-platform API.

  Finally, a few comments explored alternative approaches, like using a dedicated thread for timer management, although this was acknowledged as potentially resource-intensive. The discussion ultimately highlighted the significant challenges in designing a truly cross-platform timer API, with the conclusion being that a "one-size-fits-all" solution might not be feasible due to the inherent differences in OS architectures and priorities.

• Bunster: Compile bash scripts to self contained executables

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-23 15:17:26

  Verbose tl;dr

  Bunster is a tool that compiles Bash scripts into standalone, statically-linked executables. This allows for easy distribution and execution of Bash scripts without requiring a separate Bash installation on the target system. It achieves this by embedding a minimal Bash interpreter and necessary dependencies within the generated executable. This makes scripts more portable and user-friendly, especially for scenarios where installing dependencies or ensuring a specific Bash version is impractical.

  Bunster is a new tool designed to transform Bash scripts into standalone, executable binaries. This addresses the common challenge of dependency management when sharing or deploying Bash scripts, particularly in environments where specific versions of utilities might not be present or consistent. It works by embedding the required Bash interpreter and any necessary external utilities directly into the resulting executable. This eliminates the need for recipients to have a specific Bash version or other dependencies installed on their system. The execution process involves extracting the embedded components into a temporary directory, setting up the necessary execution environment, running the original script within this contained environment, and finally cleaning up the temporary files, leaving no trace.

  Bunster supports packaging most common Bash commands and utilities within the binary, along with supporting files. It leverages SquashFS, a highly compressed read-only filesystem, to efficiently package the required components, resulting in relatively compact executables. This process significantly simplifies distribution and execution, making it particularly useful for sharing scripts, automating tasks on diverse systems, and ensuring consistent behavior across different environments. The resulting binary operates as a self-contained unit, independent of the target system's configuration, offering improved portability and reliability. While primarily focused on Bash scripts, the project's underlying architecture could potentially be extended to support other scripting languages in the future. This makes Bunster a promising tool for streamlining the deployment and execution of scripts in various contexts.

  • bash
  • scripting
  • compiler
  • executable
  • self-contained
  • binary
  • shell
  • command-line
  • cli
  • developer tools
  • DevOps
  • Automation
  • portability
  • packaging
  • distribution
  • Linux
  • unix
  • bunster

  Summary of Comments ( 54 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42804835

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed Bunster's novel approach to compiling Bash scripts, expressing interest in its potential while also raising concerns. Several questioned the practical benefits over existing solutions like shc or containers, particularly regarding dependency management and debugging complexity. Some highlighted the inherent limitations of Bash as a scripting language compared to more robust alternatives for complex applications. Others appreciated the project's ingenuity and suggested potential use cases like simplifying distribution of simple scripts or bypassing system-level restrictions on scripting. The discussion also touched upon the performance implications of this compilation method and the challenges of handling Bash's dynamic nature. A few commenters expressed curiosity about the inner workings of the compilation process and its handling of external commands.

  The Hacker News post titled "Bunster: Compile bash scripts to self contained executables" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42804835) has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters expressing interest in the project and offering their perspectives.

  A recurring theme is the comparison of Bunster to existing tools like ShellCheck and shc. One commenter highlights that while ShellCheck focuses on static analysis to identify potential issues within Bash scripts, Bunster aims to convert them into standalone executables. This distinction is crucial, as it positions Bunster as a tool for deployment rather than just debugging. Another commenter mentions shc, an older tool with a similar purpose, and raises questions about Bunster's advantages over it, particularly regarding security and the potential for reverse engineering. This prompts a discussion about the inherent limitations of trying to completely obfuscate shell scripts.

  Several commenters express concerns about the practical applications of Bunster. One questions the benefit of creating self-contained executables for Bash scripts, given that Bash is often readily available on target systems. This sparks a discussion about potential use cases, including embedded systems, isolated environments where dependencies might be an issue, and situations where guaranteeing a specific Bash version is necessary. Another commenter emphasizes the importance of containerization technologies like Docker as a more robust solution for dependency management and deployment.

  Security is another significant point of discussion. Commenters point out the potential risks associated with executing compiled Bash scripts, especially if they originate from untrusted sources. The ease of decompilation is mentioned as a key concern, leading to a discussion about the trade-offs between ease of use and security.

  Finally, some commenters express general enthusiasm for the project and offer suggestions for improvement. One suggests the potential for cross-compilation, allowing users to create executables for different target architectures. Another proposes integration with package managers for easier distribution.

  While the discussion doesn't reach a definitive consensus on Bunster's value, it provides a multifaceted view of its potential benefits and drawbacks, considering various aspects like security, practicality, and comparison to existing solutions. The comments highlight both the excitement surrounding new tools in the DevOps space and the critical thinking necessary to evaluate their true usefulness.