Bug #10659
Wrap executables in a cleaner, safer and more consistent manner
Start date:
2015-11-24
Due date:
% Done:
0%
Description
When wrapping executables (for various reasons, e.g. torsocksifying them) we do various stuff like:
- patch
.applicationfiles’Execfield - put wrappers for e.g.
/usr/bin/$Xin/usr/local/bin/$Xand rely on the wrapped one being picked due to the$PATHordering dpkg-divertto.origin the same path
and similar. Wouldn’t a cleaner way be to:
For executable with path $EXE (e.g. /usr/bin/pidgin), dpkg-divert it to /usr/local/lib/wrapped/$EXE (e.g. /usr/local/lib/wrapped/usr/bin/pidgin), and then put the wrapper in $EXE. Then we have these improvements/advantages:
- a standard, consistent way of doing this! Less surprises!
- we don’t rely on something as brittle as
$PATHordering - in fact, the
$PATHsituation is identical as if we didn’t wrap (and the wrapped executable is not in it) - no need to touch
.applicationfiles
Subtasks
History
#1 Updated by anonym 2015-11-24 05:49:07
- Assignee changed from anonym to intrigeri
- QA Check set to Info Needed
From the top of your head, how much AppArmor-related trouble (or improvements!) would this approach imply?
#2 Updated by intrigeri 2015-11-24 06:06:51
- Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym
- QA Check changed from Info Needed to Dev Needed
> From the top of your head, how much AppArmor-related trouble (or improvements!) would this approach imply?
I don’t remember, please test.