This is tagged as version 9.26a in the ghostpdl repo, but unfortunately
there are no tarballs released with that version number so far. We'll
continue calling this version 9.26 for now for simplicity's sake (and we
can switch to 9.26a and remove the patch when it's properly released).

Fixes #58262
Fixes #58089

(cherry picked from commit 91c46d1)

https://github.com/intel/Intel-Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-Files/blob/microcode-20190312/releasenote#L85
(cherry picked from commit ba31c45)

[19.03] ghostscript: add patch for CVE-2019-6116

This utility (particularly `gitlab-rails console`) is packaged by GitLab
Omnibus and is used for diagnostics and maintenance operations.

(cherry picked from commit af909b3)

Currently if you want to properly chroot a systemd service, you could do
it using BindReadOnlyPaths=/nix/store or use a separate derivation which
gathers the runtime closure of the service you want to chroot. The
former is the easier method and there is also a method directly offered
by systemd, called ProtectSystem, which still leaves the whole store
accessible. The latter however is a bit more involved, because you need
to bind-mount each store path of the runtime closure of the service you
want to chroot.

This can be achieved using pkgs.closureInfo and a small derivation that
packs everything into a systemd unit, which later can be added to
systemd.packages.

However, this process is a bit tedious, so the changes here implement
this in a more generic way.

Now if you want to chroot a systemd service, all you need to do is:

  {
    systemd.services.myservice = {
      description = "My Shiny Service";
      wantedBy = [ "multi-user.target" ];

      confinement.enable = true;
      serviceConfig.ExecStart = "${pkgs.myservice}/bin/myservice";
    };
  }

If more than the dependencies for the ExecStart* and ExecStop* (which
btw. also includes script and {pre,post}Start) need to be in the chroot,
it can be specified using the confinement.packages option. By default
(which uses the full-apivfs confinement mode), a user namespace is set
up as well and /proc, /sys and /dev are mounted appropriately.

In addition - and by default - a /bin/sh executable is provided, which
is useful for most programs that use the system() C library call to
execute commands via shell.

Unfortunately, there are a few limitations at the moment. The first
being that DynamicUser doesn't work in conjunction with tmpfs, because
systemd seems to ignore the TemporaryFileSystem option if DynamicUser is
enabled. I started implementing a workaround to do this, but I decided
to not include it as part of this pull request, because it needs a lot
more testing to ensure it's consistent with the behaviour without
DynamicUser.

The second limitation/issue is that RootDirectoryStartOnly doesn't work
right now, because it only affects the RootDirectory option and doesn't
include/exclude the individual bind mounts or the tmpfs.

A quirk we do have right now is that systemd tries to create a /usr
directory within the chroot, which subsequently fails. Fortunately, this
is just an ugly error and not a hard failure.

The changes also come with a changelog entry for NixOS 19.03, which is
why I asked for a vote of the NixOS 19.03 stable maintainers whether to
include it (I admit it's a bit late a few days before official release,
sorry for that):

  @samueldr:

    Via pull request comment[1]:

      +1 for backporting as this only enhances the feature set of nixos,
      and does not (at a glance) change existing behaviours.

    Via IRC:

      new feature: -1, tests +1, we're at zero, self-contained, with no
      global effects without actively using it, +1, I think it's good

  @lheckemann:

    Via pull request comment[2]:

      I'm neutral on backporting. On the one hand, as @samueldr says,
      this doesn't change any existing functionality. On the other hand,
      it's a new feature and we're well past the feature freeze, which
      AFAIU is intended so that new, potentially buggy features aren't
      introduced in the "stabilisation period". It is a cool feature
      though? :)

A few other people on IRC didn't have opposition either against late
inclusion into NixOS 19.03:

  @edolstra:  "I'm not against it"
  @infinisil: "+1 from me as well"
  @grahamc:   "IMO its up to the RMs"

So that makes +1 from @samueldr, 0 from @lheckemann, 0 from @edolstra
and +1 from @infinisil (even though he's not a release manager) and no
opposition from anyone, which is the reason why I'm merging this right
now.

I also would like to thank @infinisil, @edolstra and @danbst for their
reviews.

[1]: NixOS/nixpkgs#57519 (comment)
[2]: NixOS/nixpkgs#57519 (comment)

(cherry picked from commit dcf40f7)