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

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>
> To: "Mikael Lyngvig" <mikael at lyngvig.org>
> Cc: "LLVMdev Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:00:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Windows development and "virus" in LLVM
test suite
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Mikael Lyngvig < mikael at lyngvig.org
>
> 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.
> 
> 
> At a fundamental level, I don't see easy ways to fix this.
> 
> 
> A major user of LLVM is an anti-virus software suite.
> 
> 
> A reasonable test case for them is to detect, well, a virus.
> 
> 
> A reasonable use of the test suite (which note is *not* part of the
> primary LLVM repository!) is to include tests that are a bit tricky to
> include with LLVM by default either because they take too long to run,
> have too many host dependencies, have weird license restrictions, etc
> etc.
> 
> 
> It's not clear to me that making this optional test suite easier to
> install on restrictive platforms like Windows with this security
> software you mention is worth neutering the ClamAV tests run...
Might we also have problems with virus-scanning firewalls? Would it work if we
XORed the ClamAV test's inputs with something, and then modified the test to
XOR the results of its reads (to undo the transformation). If that is sufficient
to get around this issue, then it might be worthwhile.

 -Hal
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Sounds like a great idea.  On Windows there are so many types of antivirus
solutions, that it is impossible to provide a detailed description of how
to add an ignored folder for all of them.

-- A Windows user only for the games.

2012/6/15 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>
> > To: "Mikael Lyngvig" <mikael at lyngvig.org>
> > Cc: "LLVMdev Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:00:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Windows development and "virus" in
LLVM test suite
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Mikael Lyngvig < mikael at
lyngvig.org >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > At a fundamental level, I don't see easy ways to fix this.
> >
> >
> > A major user of LLVM is an anti-virus software suite.
> >
> >
> > A reasonable test case for them is to detect, well, a virus.
> >
> >
> > A reasonable use of the test suite (which note is *not* part of the
> > primary LLVM repository!) is to include tests that are a bit tricky to
> > include with LLVM by default either because they take too long to run,
> > have too many host dependencies, have weird license restrictions, etc
> > etc.
> >
> >
> > It's not clear to me that making this optional test suite easier
to
> > install on restrictive platforms like Windows with this security
> > software you mention is worth neutering the ClamAV tests run...
>
> Might we also have problems with virus-scanning firewalls? Would it work
> if we XORed the ClamAV test's inputs with something, and then modified
the
> test to XOR the results of its reads (to undo the transformation). If that
> is sufficient to get around this issue, then it might be worthwhile.
>
>  -Hal
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20120615/5ec8aa83/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org>
wrote:
> Sounds like a great idea.  On Windows there are so many types of antivirus
> solutions, that it is impossible to provide a detailed description of how
> to add an ignored folder for all of them.

No, it's not a great idea. These are exactly the types of things virus
*already do* to get by detection systems. They will be defeated by some
extra clever anti virus software.

Look, let's not try to hack around this. Let's just admit it. There is a
virus inside of a virus scanner's test suite. That's OK.

This test suite is not required to hack on Clang or LLVM, so I think its
fine as is.

If people are seriously peeved, we could split the test suite in two, but
honestly this is the first time it has ever come up, so I suspect the cost
of dealing with this file is lower than the cost of dealing with this email
thread. ;]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120615/8ffd70ed/attachment.html>