Subject: [bug#27394] [PATCH] gnu: tor: Add seccomp support.

From: Rutger Helling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:57:01 +0200

I don't have any issues (yet) running it with the sandbox on, but I
agree it's good to test it extensively beforehand and depending on the
stability wait until the Tor Project defaults to it. 

On 2017-06-21 00:31, [email-masked] wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:07:38 +0200, [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> 
> Hi Rutger,
> 
> Rutger Helling <[email-masked]> skribis:
> 
> From 5e93733bba145ac3e3a3f39fb43f25ad7125fa2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Rutger Helling <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:15:17 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: tor: Add seccomp support.
> 
> * gnu/packages/tor.scm (tor)[inputs]: Add libseccomp. 
> Applied, thanks.
> 
> Do you think the GuixSD service should set "Sandbox 1" by default?  The
> Besides, the GuixSD service runs Tor in a container, but that doesn't
> necessarily provide the same guarantees:
> <https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/news/running-system-services-in-containers.html>.
> 
> Ludo'.

As mentioned earlier in the thread: I don't think it should be default
until we have
found it to be stable enough. I experienced several "sandbox violations"
when running
this in the last days. Is this good? Is this bad? I had no chance to
investigate this so far.
It also goes against torproject recommendations, as they consider
sandbox (seccomp) in
tor to be an unstable + testing feature, disabled by default.