Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Google Chrome

TSYNC Not a Hard Requirement For Google Chrome After All 46

An anonymous reader writes A few days ago it appeared that Google began requiring new versions of the Linux kernel for the Chrome/Chromium web browser. To some people, such requirement smelled funny, and it turns out that those people had the right hunch. Google does not intend for there to be a hard requirement on the latest versions of the Linux kernel that expose SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC, but instead many users are hitting an issue around it. A Chromium developer commented on the related bug: "Updating the title so that people who have been mislead into thinking non-TSYNC kernels were deprecated immediately understand that there is simply 'some unknown bug' hitting some users." Of course, a user having the TSYNC feature in his kernel will still get a security benefit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSYNC Not a Hard Requirement For Google Chrome After All

Comments Filter:
  • Google Chrome had a bug, it was reported, and it'll be fixed.

    • People, the problem is the people
    • by Ixokai ( 443555 )

      The story is that yesterday (the day before? I dunno, bad with time and don't feel like looking it up) \. reported that Chrome required TSYNC going forward. That was not true, thus, this story correcting that stance.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The earlier story was trying to make Debian look arbitrary and anti-Google for not making changes to a frozen release.
      It's important to retract that and clarify that this is all about a bug on Google's part.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Actually it makes Debian look even worse. They rushed to spout "Google spyware" nonsense without even checking if the TSYNC feature is actually required or not.
    • Re:What's the story? (Score:4, Informative)

      by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <<ten.knil01p> <ta> <hsawgulp>> on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @11:18AM (#49225111) Homepage

      Chrome/chromium stopped working properly on at least some systems running kernels without the tsync feature (which is a very new feature). At the time people assumed that google was intentionally requiring the new feature. Chromium is one of those programs where the only reasonable way to support it is to keep upgrading to new upstream versions. Even Debian breaks from their normal policies when it comes to major web browsers.

      It's one thing to break with your normal policies of "security and major bugfixes only" for updates to a web browser. It's altogether more contraversial if doing so requires making changes to core system components to support said web browser hence why this situation blew up a few days ago.

      Google has now clarified that chromium is supposed to work without the kernel feature in question.

  • what is tsync? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @10:59AM (#49224951) Homepage Journal
    Googling for "TSYNC" or "Linux TSYNC" or "what is TSYNC" brings up shittons of news about Chrome, but nothing about tsync.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Have a look at the comments in the previous article, lots of talk about that:

  • by bigHairyDog ( 686475 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @11:06AM (#49225005)

    The linux seccomp [] feature provides application sandboxing. Chrome uses it to sandbox tabs from each other and native plugins from the rest of the system.

    Seccomp is accessed through the seccomp (2) [] system call. The SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC flag is an option to seccomp (2) that transparently synchronises the effect of the call across all sandboxed threads.

  • Just to clarify here, the story is that Slashdot posted an incorrect and hysterical headline a few days ago, that has been refuted, and now Slashdot is making another story about it.

    Its amazing, even when there's no news, Slashdot can use this technique to report complete BS and then report on the expose of said BS! Endless news cycle!

  • by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @11:42AM (#49225383) won't require NSYNC.

    • by whovian ( 107062 )
      But what if Goo-gle wants it thaa-at way?
    • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) won't require NSYNC.

      If it does, you're free to kiss Chome Bye-Bye-Bye.
      But with the Google services integration you might enjoy, this can't exactly be called a No Strings Attached relationship.

  • come on, you tell me google is trying to destroy everything good about the world and now you say they aren't? what am i supposed to do with this google outrage now?! editors, this type of sloppiness is OUTRAGEOUS! nevermind... problem solved itself.

  • Chrome's is one of the best open source bug trackers in my opinion. There's a lot of activity from Google engineers trying to solve the problems reported. Contrast that to something like Launchpad, where my typical experience is crickets chirping and at most I get template answers like "have you tried the latest upstream kernel if it solves the problem".

    It's good to keep an eye which projects provide the best support, if we want high quality software.

  • When the first posting came out I tried current Chrome versions from all release channels on a machine with a generic unpatched 3.2.45 Linux kernel and tried installing various extensions. No problems and no error. All the rage and seemingly none of the those commenting bothered to check if the report was true or not.

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!