concern about NSS bug

Discussions about the development and maturation of the Unified XUL Platform (UXP).
Warning: may contain highly-technical topics.

Moderators: trava90, satrow

joe04
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon, 28 Sep 2015, 16:38
Location: US
Contact:

concern about NSS bug

Unread postby joe04 » Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 21:53

I've enjoyed following development on GitHub, but now I'm concerned about issue #265, the breaking of Content Permissions (and perhaps other things) by upstream refactoring for NSS 3.35

To be honest, this is the biggest concern I've had about the viability of Moonchild's fork since switching to Pale Moon 2.5 years ago. If, as he wrote, "Mozilla simply doesn't give a shit" about the bug he filed, that's a serious cause for concern.

So I'm making this post to get a realistic appraisal of this situation.

1) How long can UXP safely remain on NSS 3.32.1? (I'm assuming that it too gets security patches, like the rest of Mozilla's C++ code.)

2) Will a stagnant NSS become another item of website incompatibility? (3.32.1 works fine in Pale Moon currently, and I'm unaware of any problems related to it, but what about a year from now? Or two years?)

3) Moonchild, is this a problem you can fix yourself? And assuming you do and upstream ignores your patch, are you willing to maintain a forked, backported version of NSS yourself?
Last edited by joe04 on Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 22:02, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: concern about NSS bug

Unread postby Sajadi » Sun, 29 Apr 2018, 10:52

That NSS stuff seems to be related to TLS - and as long as TLS 1.2 is still valid, there is no reason to be concerned. Pretty sure that it keeps staying relevant for the next couple of years to come.

But still, the question is, how to make NSS compatible with Pale Moon/Basilisk to allow TLS 1.3 to be implemented?

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: concern about NSS bug

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Sun, 29 Apr 2018, 15:28

TLS 1.3 is in there just not the latest draft..i suppose we do it manually.

Image

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 21704
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: concern about NSS bug

Unread postby Moonchild » Sun, 29 Apr 2018, 19:58

So, let me get this right... because NSS was not just refactored but made unstable that we tickle somehow (in one of the three applications but not the others), and as a result we have to back it out because stability has gone out the window, suddenly the whole viability of Pale Moon and UXP is questioned. You know, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of people with that attitude. No, I won't go spend tons of time explaining what exactly is going on with NSS. If you want to know, check the upstream bug I filed at bugzilla.

If you have so little trust in what we do that you immediately have to question everything the moment something hits a little bump in the road, then what are you even doing here? Go use something else that 400 million a year to spend to "ensure there are no bugs" -- oh wait, that's not true either. :P
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne

joe04
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon, 28 Sep 2015, 16:38
Location: US
Contact:

Re: concern about NSS bug

Unread postby joe04 » Sun, 29 Apr 2018, 22:19

I must've touched a nerve. Didn't expect this level of spin from you, Moonchild. Your snippy attitude confirms the severity of the NSS problem - pretty serious. That does indeed undermine my confidence in the UXP codebase.

I'm already moving on. I've spent a few hours getting Firefox 59 setup, including porting some of my uBO modifications (aka xBA) to the WebExtension version; those are very important to me, and thankfully I'll be able to retain them. So instead of transitioning from a backported 38 ESR fork to a backported 52 ESR fork, like I assumed I'd be up until this NSS problem arose, I'll be tranisitioning to 60 ESR next month.

There will be specifics I'll miss from XUL add-ons, but overall I'll be alright. The benefits of not having to worry about items of utmost significance, like the viability of NSS, are definitely worth it to me. Peace of mind counts for a whole lot.

I've had a good 14 year run with XUL add-ons, and I appreciate my time on Pale Moon (which will continue on v27 for some time as I gradually transition).

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: concern about NSS bug

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Mon, 30 Apr 2018, 00:12


Image

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 21704
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: concern about NSS bug

Unread postby Moonchild » Mon, 30 Apr 2018, 00:20

Well, I guess no matter what my response would have been, you could and clearly would spin it to the same conclusion.

You didn't hit a nerve. My response was one of genuine disbelief. But I guess your mind was already made up. :D

"In science, proving one's own theory never proves anything - instead, trying to disprove one's theory and failing is the proof one truly seeks."
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne


Return to “UXP development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest