Slashdot Mirror


Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

An anonymous reader writes Google's Chrome/Chromium web browser does not support slightly older versions of the Linux kernel anymore. Linux 3.17 is now the minimum requirement. According to a thread on the Debian mailing list, a kernel feature called TSYNC is what makes the difference. When a backported patch for the Debian 8 kernel was requested, there were hostile replies about not wanting to support "Google spyware."

16 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't smell right by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This doesn't pass the sniff test. This 'bug' has apparently been around for months (October/November) and it's just now that people are noticing? And the fix is patching the kernel rather than regressing whatever change was in Chrome that added this?

    1. Re:Doesn't smell right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are only noticing now because Google recently announced that future versions of Chromium (and thus Chrome) will only work with kernels that have this flag. It's a silly controversy because a Debian kernel maintainer just categorically rejected adding the patch not on any technical merit, but simply because he doesn't like Google. And as far as rejecting the patch because the freeze, well, that doesn't really fly since this patch was offered back in October of last year. In fact, Ubuntu already backported the patch for 12.04 lts kernel (3.13) and higher. So its not as if Debian couldn't have added the patch before the freeze. Apparently, this patch is simply being rejected because of a pathetic personal animosity towards the developer of patch, or the company he works for (Google).

  2. Re:So much for Debian 8, then... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that I was going to use a system that kowtows to RMS by calling itself GNU/Linux anyway, but the OS is there to support the software I use, and I use Chrome on Linux. If the OS won't support it, then I won't use it.

    So, you tell us you are not going to use a system that you weren't going to use.

    And we should give a fuck, why?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  3. People are correctly annoyed by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The general issue here is that running a fairly large, popular application now requires a kernel patch that was authored by the same organization that wrote the application. Moreover, the kernel version including this patch is well newer than what's shipped by most mainstream distributions, AND the application vendor is fairly hostile to running older versions of the application software (that wouldn't require this patch).

    So,

    1. Vendor isn't willing to think about distribution support timelines
    2. Vendor doesn't seem to care about kernel/userspace boundaries and very happily writes code on both sides to an interface they've designed themselves, for themselves.
    3. Profit?

    Yes, doing it this way is notably easier for Google. This is generally considered one of the selling points of a closed ecosystem: you don't have to care about little things like public interfaces and what's already in the field (and going to be there for a decade): just "move fast and break stuff" because it all works in the environment that you're testing in, and you don't much care about anything else.

  4. Re:So much for Debian 8, then... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it's yet another reason not to use them.

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  5. Re:How the fuck does Chrome handle other platforms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LTS as a practice, is against Google's best interest - Google is attempting to leverage Chrome to turn all software into insecure, auto-update, phone home garbage - just like all other web applications. They don't want to use the workaround, they want you to update.

  6. Google Chrome is fast moving... by gbcox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is really a non-issue. Chrome decided to use a recent feature in the kernel. This happens all the time. Most distributions that are using the older kernel have patched. If Debian doesn't want to patch, move to another distribution or switch to Firefox. Both Fedora 20 and 21 are on 3.17 - so it isn't an issue there. Debian is notorious for using old stuff, so it may be the kernel they are using requires a multitude of changes and because of their policies they don't want to move to a more recent version. You buy into that logic when you choose to use Debian - so expect this stuff to happen. This has nothing to do with RMS or Google; rather the mismatch of using a slow to update distribution with a browser that is on the fast track.

    1. Re:Google Chrome is fast moving... by gbcox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh for pete sake... It doesn't matter who created the feature... it was viewed as relevant and worthwhile otherwise Linus wouldn't have allowed it in the kernel. You'll have the kernel feature if it is backported. This appears to be all about Debian. If they choose not to backport either switch distributions or use another browser. Most people aren't going to be impacted by this. It's kinda of silly... it's the feigned internet outrage of the day.

    2. Re:Google Chrome is fast moving... by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The application dropped support for production kernels ... because it wants a patch that isn't yet in production kernels.

      The feature is in several stable kernel branches. Your distro might just not support them, so either don't use Chrome, or don't use that distro, or figure out how to use a newer kernel on your distro. :)

    3. Re:Google Chrome is fast moving... by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      THAT THE CHROME DEVS SUBMITTED TO THE KERNEL

      Putting something in bold doesn't in any way make it relevant. Chrome devs didn't put it into the kernel, they submitted it as you said. There's a whole team that look after and maintain the kernel and they don't just blindly let every bit of code in. Most things go through review and go into the kernel only if Linus doesn't castrate the submitter.

      TSYNC is now a current feature of the kernel. Where it came from is entirely irrelevant.

      Also given the market share of Chrome on Linux in the wider scheme of the internet I think they may have only shot off the tip of one toenail. The foot will be fine.

  7. Re:So much for Debian 8, then... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To each his own.

    However, for folks who want their OS to actually pay attention to their needs, it's yet another nail in Debian's coffin.

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  8. Re:What's TSYNC ? by Cley+Faye · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they were able to survive without TSYNC and make it 'safe' but suddenly they can't

    Geez, improving their software's security by taking advantage of better kernel support, Google really are deadbeat stupid. Better drop the sandboxing idea, have everything in the same process, preferably run as root. We'll be all safe with this old, not up-to-date version of openssl with brand new SSL3.0 support.

  9. Re:Mailing list sounds like a bunch of Whiners.... by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chrome is by definition, spyware.

    It does everything in its power to relay information about your activities back to Google, right down to what you click and when, if you allow it.

    Most of these 'features' require you to opt-in, but some just happen right out of the box.

    If you don't realize that the entire existence of Chrome and Chromium is to get information about you, you're an idiot with your head in the sand.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  10. Re:So much for Debian 8, then... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what? I'm not paranoid about Google. They don't care about me individually, and I opt out of their ad targeting. The rest I just don't care about.

    You're can't be paranoid about google, paranoia is thinking that someone's watching you, with Google, they boldly state they're watching you and in your case you're aware of that. I personally do care what Google knows and have taken steps to limit that significantly, by using as little of their services as possible and making tracking me much more difficult. A random Jane or John at Google shouldn't be able to tell you you're on your period this week, for instance.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  11. Re:So much for Debian 8, then... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That doesn't make sense. TSYNC is a security-enhancing feature.

    Chrome uses seccomp-bpf for Sandboxing.... that is isolating certain threads from the system.

    TSYNC facilitates software correctness with regards to the security. Without TSYNC, there is a greater likelihood of problems in the application leading to system compromise.

    So I'm quite satisfied by Google's choice to refuse to run their browser on kernels that don't support current security features.

    Firefox, Konqueror, Midori, Epihani, Opera, Arora, etc, should do the same.

    Of course, they will have to implement multi-threaded Sandboxing functionality first.

  12. Re:So much for Debian 8, then... by tomknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm instead amazed by Google's arrogance in stating that RHEL 6 is "too old" for Google Chrome. It's been that way since at least last summer, so my RHEL teaching cluster and workstations just don't have chrome installed.

    Actually, that's not quite true - one user manged to get Chrome working, but it regularly consumes all system resources and crashes the PC. Result.

    All in all, I'm happy to do without Chrome on RHEL 6. Will I try to get it working when I roll out RHEL 7 this summer? Possibly, but moves like this make me wonder if Google's a company whose products I want to install at all. Firefox ESR may have its faults, but it basically works, and I can trust it'll stay working.

    --
    Oh arse