snap/validate.go: disallow snap layouts with new top-level directories #8985
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Ian Johnson <ian.johnson@canonical.com>
anonymouse64
force-pushed
the
bugfix/check-new-top-level-dirs-layouts
branch
from
9ff2d2c
to
ef9ba38
Compare
We previously wouldn't fail on verification for snaps that used new top-level directories, and would fail at runtime, which produces a very unhelpful message. Also adjust some test yamls in interfaces/mount tests, which are not valid as they are for new top-level directories in /. Finally, add an additional unit test for the test case with LP #1831010 that is already covered by spread tests, but not yet by unit tests. Signed-off-by: Ian Johnson <ian.johnson@canonical.com>
anonymouse64
force-pushed
the
bugfix/check-new-top-level-dirs-layouts
branch
from
ef9ba38
to
7ae57af
Compare
|
@anonymouse64 my review was hasty, the validator needs to expand variables or it will lead to failures in supported cases like this: |
zyga
reviewed
Jul 7, 2020
snap/validate.go
Outdated
| @@ -400,6 +400,38 @@ func ValidateLayoutAll(info *Info) error { | |||
| } | |||
| sort.Strings(paths) | |||
|
|
|||
| // Validate that each source path is not a new top-level directory | |||
| for pathSrc := range info.Layout { | |||
| cleanPathSrc := info.ExpandSnapVariables(filepath.Clean(pathSrc)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is puzzling. Having expanded the variables it still is confused. Looking at the rest of the code we seem to use Layout.PathJ
In actual usages outside of the unit tests, we will use the layout.Path element so use that instead. Signed-off-by: Ian Johnson <ian.johnson@canonical.com>
bboozzoo
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2020
| // this list was produced by taking all of the top level | ||
| // directories in the core snap and removing the explicitly | ||
| // denied top-level directories | ||
| case "bin", "etc", "lib", "lib64", "meta", "mnt", "opt", "root", "sbin", "snap", "srv", "usr", "var", "writable": |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Orthogonal to the PR, but shouldn't /writable be denied too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mmm not sure, since the directory is there and since 2.4X we don't mount /writable inside the snap's mount namespace anyways I don't see why we should disallow /writable, @zyga what do you think ?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We previously wouldn't fail on verification for snaps that used new top-level directories, and would fail at runtime, which produces a very unhelpful message.
Also adjust some test yamls in interfaces/mount tests, which are not valid as they are for new top-level directories in /.
Finally, add an additional unit test for the test case with LP #1831010 that is already covered by spread tests, but not yet by unit tests.
See https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/snap-application-works-in-classic-mode-fails-in-dev-mode-and-strict/18562/7 for an example of such a confusion.