chromium backdoor? nspawn vs plain

warteeminus321 · 2022-10-10 16:54:28

I ran self-compiled ungoogled-chromium in 2 settings:
1) Xephyr, firejail
2) Xephyr, nspawn, firejail

I observed different - and bizarre - u/chromium firejail behavior. The only difference was running u/chromium in an nspawn container.
In #1 Firejail configuration ran out of the box for u/chromium (in just a plain Xephyr and firejail on the host).
Conundrums with an nspawn containerrr:
1) u/chromium wouldn't run with the default firejail config in an nspawn! And when I dug in, it wouldn't run because of something very weird - firejail's default configuration blacklisted a bunch of .config/chromium folders! Very suspicious that firejail would blacklist .config/chromium folders...and that chromium would run with that, too (outside of nspawn).
2) GPU did not run in the nspawn container, like actually for real. That is the behavior I intended and I had flags to turn off gpu, etc...and the nspawn firejail messages literally told me gpu can't be started...not so when running it outside of nspawn!
3) Very weird - firejail'ed u/chromium in the nspawn container tried to (unsuccessfull thank god) unmount /sys and mount /sys. Is that legal even to do for a browser upon startup? Nspawn prevented this.

Is Arch broken?

icar · 2022-10-10 17:05:36

> chromium backdoor?

You can check the code yourself.

> Is Arch broken?

Is this a troll post? I fail to read a relevant question.

Last edited by icar (2022-10-10 17:06:14)

warteeminus321 · 2022-10-10 17:07:31

icar wrote:

>
Is this a troll post? I fail to read a relevant question.

That was a joke. But you could respond with factual insights.

Arch Linux

#1 2022-10-10 16:54:28

chromium backdoor? nspawn vs plain

#2 2022-10-10 17:05:36

Re: chromium backdoor? nspawn vs plain

#3 2022-10-10 17:07:31

Re: chromium backdoor? nspawn vs plain

Board footer