Flatpak support
-
@luetage it's not necessarily either/or. it seems logically possible that some might be incapable and lazy.
at least, that's what all my friend muttered; i wouldn't know, & certainly have no opinion.
-
@ybjrepnfr Your friend(
s) likes to talk. When you meet them next, tell them the laziness of the incapable is of no consequence, because they couldn’t get it done in the first place. Alas! The burden of the capable. -
@luetage ooh, you've run rings around them logically [penguins]. i shall enthusiastically tell them this next time we're all in a room together. i expect that won't be long...
-
@ybjrepnfr said in Flatpak support:
you have, of course, already read this info, haven't you...?
or this in the same thread here... https://forum.vivaldi.net/post/652131
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
Quick reminder of the forum's code of conduct:
Ask your questions clearly and stay positive.
Be patient, welcoming and respectful
Don’t insult or use unfriendly language, including ALL CAPS
Don’t disrupt discussions with irrelevant, off-topic remarks -
@Ruarí said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
here is a reason there is not a single officially maintained flatpak from the Chromium browser manufaturers.
Huh! Indeed!
Well, Vivaldi could be the 1st one!
After Firefox
I am ready to test Vivaldi flatpak even without proprietary media!
//MODEDIT: Flatpak-related discussion moved from the Snapshot thread
-
@Stardust said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
I am ready to test Vivaldi flatpak even without proprietary media!
I have media working but this is the least of my concerns right now.
Firefox does not contain the same sandboxing mechanism that Chromium does, so the fact that they have an official app is basically irrelevant. I presume because they do some thing differently they do not hit the same problems that Chromium apps do, which I will expand on now.
So let's start by saying that the Chromium sandbox is actually very good and it is fully inteprocess. flatpak's "sandboxing" is typically only used to seperate the app (in our case Vivaldi) from other apps and/or from parts of the OS. In Chromium if you load facebook in one tab it cannot get access to the process that runs youtube in your other tab.
But the Chromium sandbox needs greater integration with the OS and the attempts by flatpak to handle sandboxing clashes. Thus all the Chromium browsers and Electron apps use a hack (Zypak) which fakes part of the chromium sandbox.
In short, Flatpak doesn't allow important parts of the Chromium sandbox to work as intended by the Chromium team, when running under Flatpak. So you either end up with no internal (interprocess) sandbox or one which is replaced with something potentially weaker and certainly less well understood and tested. Zypak is maintained by a single person. Those responsible for the Chromium sandbox are a whole team.
I do not currently feel confident that you aren't actually getting less security trying to run a Chromium based app in flatpak. I also strongly suspect this is why you are not finding a single official flatpak by any Chromium based browser. Either they decided it is less secure or they suspect it might be and do not want to take a risk.
If we made this official we would be saying this is Ok and my gut tells me it really is not!
-
@Stardust Interestingly you do find official apps of Brave, Opera, etc. in the snap store. Additionally, last time I looked at snap (quite a while ago now admittedly) I do not remember any such problems with the sandboxing.
So again my gut tells me that if we were to support an additional package type, snap would be a far safer option for us to endorse or recommend for our users. In addition proprietary media is actually MUCH easier on snap. There is a standard official method to add support seamlessly, indeed Opera is already doing this which is likely why they tend to push their snap app over rpm or deb.
In a way this is a shame as I do not really like Canonical's recent actions relating to trying to block flatpak in favour of snap but it does seemto be easier to work with if you are a Chromium based browser and want to ensure security.
-
@Stardust I recommend you read the manifest for any Chromium based browser. They ALL use Zypak. Most Electron apps do too… or… they completely disable the Chromium sandbox with a command line switch.
Also read this about Zypak and and tell me if this does not worry you. It should. I do not agree with replacing parts of the Chromium sandbox with a hack by a single maintainer. Perhaps this person is great at what they do and it is fine but I cannot judge this and I see it as an immediate red flag.
https://github.com/refi64/zypak/blob/main/README.md#how-does-it-work
-
@Stardust Also to be 100% clear I am not knocking security in flatpak more generally. I fully admit I am not a security professional and from my limited perspective attempting to seperate apps from each other and parts of the OS seems like a good idea. So for any app not based on Chromium or that does not do sandboxing of its own I would assume this can only good thing. But for Chromium based apps (because of the clash), I am left doubting it.
P.S. It has been commented by others more knowledgeable than me that flatpak sandboxing is not really sandboxing https://hanako.codeberg.page I note the author is not much of a fan of snap "sandboxing" either but on the flip side at least with snap the Chromium sandbox runs as intended and is not potentially weakened, so for Vivaldi and our users it would likely be better.
-
@Ruarí said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
In Chromium if you load facebook in one tab it cannot get access to the process that runs youtube in your other tab.
Does Firefox have the same thing with Site Isolation now enabled by default iirc?
https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/05/18/introducing-site-isolation-in-firefox/Thus all the Chromium browsers and Electron apps use a hack (Zypak) which fakes part of the chromium sandbox.
I didn't know this
So again my gut tells me that if we were to support an additional package type, snap would be a far safer option for us to endorse or recommend for our users. In addition proprietary media is actually MUCH easier on snap. There is a standard official method to add support seamlessly, indeed Opera is already doing this which is likely why they tend to push their snap app over rpm or deb.
I have a feeling that most linux users don't like snaps. Well, I don't see any snap demands on Vivaldi forum. Everyone wants Vivaldi flatpak instead.
I personally not interesting in Vivaldi snap, I don't use snap apps at all.I recommend you read the manifest for any Chromium based browser. They ALL use Zypak. Most Electron apps do too… or… they completely disable the Chromium sandbox with a command line switch.
I wonder what if you don't disable the Chromium sandbox but disable Flatpak sandbox instead while Flatpak team improving Chromium sandboxing thing?
Also read this about Zypak and and tell me if this does not worry you. It should. I do not agree with replacing parts of the Chromium sandbox with a hack by a single maintainer. Perhaps this person is great at what they do and it is fine but I cannot judge this and I see it as an immediate red flag.
Well, it sounds like a big issue. Maybe Flatpak team will improve this soon.
I note the author is not much of a fan of snap "sandboxing" either but on the flip side at least with snap the Chromium sandbox runs as intended and is not potentially weakened, so for Vivaldi and our users it would likely be better.
I am afraid no one would use Vivaldi snap
Everyone wants flatpak!I see another option - Firefox engine for Vivaldi!
-
@Stardust said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
I am afraid no one would use Vivaldi snap
Not true, we have had requests for it on social media and via channels like the bug tracker.
-
@Stardust said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
I see another option - Firefox engine for Vivaldi!
That is not a remotely viable option though. That basically means throw everything away and start from scratch.
-
@Ruarí said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
Not true, we have had requests for it on social media and via channels like the bug tracker.
That's very surprising!
That is not a remotely viable option though. That basically means throw everything away and start from scratch.
-
@Ruarí said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
Additionally, last time I looked at snap (quite a while ago now admittedly) I do not remember any such problems with the sandboxing.
It has this major one, posted 3 years ago referring to further years back, but they are still promising it (for non Ubuntu distros):
https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/snapd-still-requires-out-of-tree-apparmor-patches-for-strict-confinement/19632Also it pretty much failed the security audit by SUSE so it wasn't ever included either in SUSE or OpenSUSE.
https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/projects?type=classicAnd snapd is only controlled by Canonical and they had a record of not quickly discovering malicious snaps there (and letting them be there in the first place, where's the check...).
-
@Ruarí said in Upgrade to Chromium 114 – Vivaldi Browser snapshot 3023.3:
throw everything away and start from scratch
we accept your generous offer. can it be ready by friday, say around lunchtime?
-
request to the Mods pls.
@Ruarí has posted some extremely valuable info on the flatpak challenge in this thread, but inevitably it'll get lost once this thread closes with ongoing snappies. afaik there's at least one "dedicated" flatpak thread. can all the fp posts in this current thread pls be copied into that other thread, so that all relevant info on this ongoing topic is centralised?
-
and I wanted to propose to make a blog-post from it
* 
