via the Unix domain socket in /nix/var/nix/daemon.socket. The
server forks a worker process per connection.
* readString(): use the heap, not the stack.
* Some protocol fixes.
mode. Presumably nix-worker would be setuid to the Nix store user.
The worker performs all operations on the Nix store and database, so
the caller can be completely unprivileged.
This is already much more secure than the old setuid scheme, since
the worker doesn't need to do Nix expression evaluation and so on.
Most importantly, this means that it doesn't need to access any user
files, with all resulting security risks; it only performs pure
store operations.
Once this works, it is easy to move to a daemon model that forks off
a worker for connections established through a Unix domain socket.
That would be even more secure.
* Some refactoring: put the NAR archive integer/string serialisation
code in a separate file so it can be reused by the worker protocol
implementation.
Rather, setuid support is now always compiled in (at least on
platforms that have the setresuid system call, e.g., Linux and
FreeBSD), but it must enabled by chowning/chmodding the Nix
binaries.
concatenation and string coercion. This was a big mess (see
e.g. NIX-67). Contexts are now folded into strings, so that they
don't cause evaluation errors when they're not expected. The
semantics of paths has been clarified (see nixexpr-ast.def).
toString() and coerceToString() have been merged.
Semantic change: paths are now copied to the store when they're in a
concatenation (and in most other situations - that's the
formalisation of the meaning of a path). So
"foo " + ./bla
evaluates to "foo /nix/store/hash...-bla", not "foo
/path/to/current-dir/bla". This prevents accidental impurities, and
is more consistent with the treatment of derivation outputs, e.g.,
`"foo " + bla' where `bla' is a derivation. (Here `bla' would be
replaced by the output path of `bla'.)
implementations of MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-256. The main benefit is that
we get assembler-optimised implementations of MD5 and SHA-1 (though
not SHA-256 (at least on x86), unfortunately). OpenSSL's SHA-1
implementation on Intel is twice as fast as ours.
