On Jun 8, 2024, at 02:25, Laszlo Merenyi <[email protected]> wrote:CPUs.
Message-id: <[email protected]>
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Hello,
I encountered a similar sudo issue with Bookworm installed on a Vortex86DX3 CPU based embedded computer.
Vortex86 series chips are less known x86 CPUs, that are manufactured and are available on-the-market still today. Their type detection in Linux Kernel was implemented in 2021. They are 32-bit only and they are stated not to be fully i686 compatible
See for example: https://www.icop.com.tw/news/858#!
I was able to make sudo (and visudo) executable working on this CPU, by recompiling the sudo-1.9.15p5 source code package on the target with manually removed "-fcf_protection" hardening option.
I did not yet met any other program in Bookworm's i386 release having similar "illegal instruction" issue. So, by using a recompiled sudo, Bookworm seems to work on Vortex86DX3.
Regards,
Laszlo
I was able to make sudo (and visudo) executable working on this CPU, by recompiling the sudo-1.9.15p5 source code package on the target with manually removed "-fcf_protection" hardening option.
I did not yet met any other program in Bookworm's i386 release having similar "illegal instruction" issue. So, by using a recompiled sudo, Bookworm seems to work on Vortex86DX3.
On Jun 9, 2024, at 03:02, Marc Haber <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 07:25:49 +0000, Laszlo Merenyi
<[email protected]> wrote:
I was able to make sudo (and visudo) executable working on this CPU, by recompiling the sudo-1.9.15p5 source code package on the target with manually removed "-fcf_protection" hardening option.
I did not yet met any other program in Bookworm's i386 release having similar "illegal instruction" issue. So, by using a recompiled sudo, Bookworm seems to work on Vortex86DX3.
I am part of the sudo maintainer team in Debian. Sudo is a security
relevant software, and in the team we decided that it is more
important to have a maximally hardened binary than to run on hardware
that doesnt have official support.
I'd rather not weaken sudo security for all over supporting a tiny
part of the hardware base. Also, the bug is a toolchain topic in my
opinion, sudo is just a user of the problematic toolchain features.
I'm open for arguments though. Please also see #1043281 which has most
of the technical points there.
The question right now is: Is this processor supported at all?No.
So given that these no longer fit the "old and busted" description, is Debian going to stick with the decision to not support them?I'm sure we will, yes, though I'm not in a position to decide that.
Or is Debian going to continue to support this processor, since it is still apparently a viable product, enough that new systems are using it?Considering the plans for i386 I don't think it makes sense to even ask
Only after that issue is addressed does anyone need to worry about sudo. Depending on the answer, that is.Yes, this indeed looks like one of those "why you don't support my CPU"
Based on these NEW i686-class systems being available, are people more willing to spend the time to support them, knowing that the code will be used on hardware still supported by its manufacturer, still under warranty, still in production use, etc.?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 28:15:30 |
| Calls: | 12,107 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,228 |