llvm dev - Jun 2012 - [LLVMdev] Windows development and "virus" in LLVM test suite

I admit I belong to a small group of not-too-bright people who still aspire
to use LLVM.  But I kind of see that as a highly valuable feature, insofar
I convert this fact into something constructive (such as FAQ writing) :-)

I actually did recommend people to disable their antivirus solution for two
reasons - the aforementioned "virus" and the speed slowdown that
they'll
experience, but then somebody (can't remember who) reacted and said it
wasn't a good idea to recommend people to disable their antivirus solution.

However, I see a nifty compromise visualising behind my eyes: Ask the user
to add the LLVM source and build directories to their virus ignore list.
 This will solve both issues.

-- Geez, sometimes I'm smarter than I am.

2012/6/15 Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com>
>
> On 15.06.2012, at 22:53, Mikael Lyngvig wrote:
>
> > 1. I can't tell Microsoft Security Essentials to ignore anything. 
Even
> if I click Allow, it breaks the pull.
> > 2. The issue is not me.  I don't download virus infested stuff and
I
> don't visit dangerous sites so I rarely have a need for antivirus
solutions.
> >
> > The issue is the newcomer Windows user whom I have to instruct to
> disable and/or remove his antivirus program if he or she wants to set up a
> Windows buildbot slave.  A bit drastic, but that's life as it is now.
>
> The intersection of "people using the LLVM test-suite" and
"people who
> don't know how to disable their antivirus" may not be empty, but
it's
> really too small to care about. The test-suite isn't meant to be used
by
> end-users, we can expect anyone who wants to try the testsuite to be smart
> enough to put "eicar" in the search engine of their choice and
then then
> disable their antivirus after finding out what it is.
>
> I'm also strongly suggesting to disable any kind of antivirus guard on
a
> machine that builds and tests llvm because it slows down builds
> significantly and has the tendency to make testing more unstable. Racing
> file handle locks on windows are a big pain, and antivirus solutions tend
> to create these conditions all the time. We have seen bogus, hard to
> reproduce test failures because of this in the past.
>
> - Ben
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120615/d4c03efe/attachment.html>

Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> writes:
> I admit I belong to a small group of not-too-bright people who still aspire
> to use LLVM.  But I kind of see that as a highly valuable feature, insofar
> I convert this fact into something constructive (such as FAQ writing) :-)
>
> I actually did recommend people to disable their antivirus solution for two
> reasons - the aforementioned "virus" and the speed slowdown that
they'll
> experience, but then somebody (can't remember who) reacted and said it
> wasn't a good idea to recommend people to disable their antivirus
solution.
I agree about not recommending *people* to disable their antivirus. The
human beings that work with the LLVM test suite are not "people", they
ought to understand the implications of disabling the AV. Moreover, they
will be happy to have just another reason for not having an active AV
running on their machines. Quite a few AV packages are worse than most
of the malware they supposedly protect from.
> However, I see a nifty compromise visualising behind my eyes: Ask the user
> to add the LLVM source and build directories to their virus ignore list.
>  This will solve both issues.
No, they shall add the *specific* file that triggers the AV alert to the
ignore list, otherwise those directories could act as safe harbors for
malware. It is a good thing to put a warning on the web page that
explains how to obtain the LLVM test suite about the existence of such
file and suggesting to disable the AV while checking out the package and
to add the exception after that.

Thanks for your input.  We are getting closer and closer to the final
solution to this issue.  I agree with you, on second thought, that only THE
offending file should be excluded.

If somebody is stupid enough to disable their antivirus or remove it
(namely me), it is their own choice and is not something that all of the
LLVM group has to take part in.

So, I'll make sure the Windows docs very precisely and accurately tell the
user to add that one single file to the ignore list.  Only thing I disagree
about is that I think the exception should be added beforehand; no need to
ask people to disable their antivirus solution if they can add the
exception beforehand.

2012/6/16 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>
> Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> writes:
>
> > I admit I belong to a small group of not-too-bright people who still
> aspire
> > to use LLVM.  But I kind of see that as a highly valuable feature,
> insofar
> > I convert this fact into something constructive (such as FAQ writing)
:-)
> >
> > I actually did recommend people to disable their antivirus solution
for
> two
> > reasons - the aforementioned "virus" and the speed slowdown
that they'll
> > experience, but then somebody (can't remember who) reacted and
said it
> > wasn't a good idea to recommend people to disable their antivirus
> solution.
>
> I agree about not recommending *people* to disable their antivirus. The
> human beings that work with the LLVM test suite are not "people",
they
> ought to understand the implications of disabling the AV. Moreover, they
> will be happy to have just another reason for not having an active AV
> running on their machines. Quite a few AV packages are worse than most
> of the malware they supposedly protect from.
>
> > However, I see a nifty compromise visualising behind my eyes: Ask the
> user
> > to add the LLVM source and build directories to their virus ignore
list.
> >  This will solve both issues.
>
> No, they shall add the *specific* file that triggers the AV alert to the
> ignore list, otherwise those directories could act as safe harbors for
> malware. It is a good thing to put a warning on the web page that
> explains how to obtain the LLVM test suite about the existence of such
> file and suggesting to disable the AV while checking out the package and
> to add the exception after that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120616/f8b5e098/attachment.html>