The workaround for "Some distros patch Linux" mentioned in
local-derivation-goal.cc will not help in the `--option
sandbox-fallback false` case. To provide the user more helpful
guidance on how to get the sandbox working, let's check to see if the
`/proc` node created by the aforementioned patch is present and
configured in a way that will cause us problems. If so, give the user
a suggestion for how to troubleshoot the problem.
local-derivation-goal.cc contains a comment stating that "Some distros
patch Linux to not allow unprivileged user namespaces." Let's give a
pointer to a common version of this patch for those who want more
details about this failure mode.
This commit causes nix to `warn()` if sandbox setup has failed and
`/proc/self/ns/user` does not exist. This is usually a sign that the
kernel was compiled without `CONFIG_USER_NS=y`, which is required for
sandboxing.
This commit uses `warn()` to notify the user if sandbox setup fails
with errno==EPERM and /proc/sys/user/max_user_namespaces is missing or
zero, since that is at least part of the reason why sandbox setup
failed.
Note that `echo -n 0 > /proc/sys/user/max_user_namespaces` or
equivalent at boot time has been the recommended mitigation for
several Linux LPE vulnerabilities over the past few years. Many users
have applied this mitigation and then forgotten that they have done
so.
The failure modes for nix's sandboxing setup are pretty complicated.
When nix is unable to set up the sandbox, let's provide more detail
about what went wrong. Specifically:
* Make sure the error message includes the word "sandbox" so the user
knows that the failure was related to sandboxing.
* If `--option sandbox-fallback false` was provided, and removing it
would have allowed further attempts to make progress, let the user
know.
I recently got fairly confused why the following expression didn't have
any effect
{
description = "Foobar";
inputs.sops-nix = {
url = github:mic92/sops-nix;
inputs.nixpkgs_22_05.follows = "nixpkgs";
};
}
until I found out that the input was called `nixpkgs-22_05` (please note
the dash vs. underscore).
IMHO it's not a good idea to not throw an error in that case and
probably leave end-users rather confused, so I implemented a small check
for that which basically checks whether `follows`-declaration from
overrides actually have corresponding inputs in the transitive flake.
In fact this was done by accident already in our own test-suite where
the removal of a `follows` was apparently forgotten[1].
Since the key of the `std::map` that holds the `overrides` is a vector
and we have to find the last element of each vector (i.e. the override)
this has to be done with a for loop in O(n) complexity with `n` being
the total amount of overrides (which shouldn't be that large though).
Please note that this doesn't work with nested expressions, i.e.
inputs.fenix.inputs.nixpkgs.follows = "...";
which is a known problem[2].
For the expression demonstrated above, an error like this will be
thrown:
error: sops-nix has a `follows'-declaration for a non-existant input nixpkgs_22_05!
[1] 2664a216e5
[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/5790
