| 1 |
Dnia 26 października 2017 23:58:53 CEST, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 2 |
>On 2017.10.26 21:12, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi, everyone. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> After a week of hard work, I'd like to request your comments |
| 6 |
>> on the draft of GLEP 74. This GLEP aims to replace the old |
| 7 |
>> tree-signing |
| 8 |
>> GLEPs 58 and 60 with a superior implementation and more complete |
| 9 |
>> specification. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> The original tree-signing GLEPs were accepted a few years back but |
| 12 |
>> they |
| 13 |
>> have never been implemented. This specification, on the other hand, |
| 14 |
>> comes with a working reference implementation for the verification |
| 15 |
>> algorithm. I expect to finish the update/generation part in a few |
| 16 |
>> days, |
| 17 |
>> then work on additional optimizations (threading, incremental |
| 18 |
>> verification, incremental updates). |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> ReST: https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/glep-0074.rst |
| 21 |
>> HTML: https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/glep-0074.html |
| 22 |
>> impl: https://github.com/mgorny/gemato/ |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Full text following for inline comments. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>[snip lots of hard work] |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> -- |
| 29 |
>> Best regards, |
| 30 |
>> Michał Górny |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
>Michał, |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
>Thank you for the hard work. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
>This GLEP implies that users need to have the entire repository to |
| 40 |
>validate |
| 41 |
>and authenticate, if I understand it correctly. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
>For example |
| 44 |
>PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS="--exclude=<list_of_<package/categories>" |
| 45 |
>wil still work but the resulting tree could not be authenticaed. as |
| 46 |
>the top level signature would fail. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
>The manifests would still work correctly because they only apply to |
| 49 |
>the directory containing them. Pruning the repository at |
| 50 |
>rsync time will therefore remove the manifents and the files that they |
| 51 |
>cover. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
>Is that understanding correct? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Yes. We can't technically distinguish intentional package removal by user from malicious third party stripping them. This is something that a package manager extension might handle but it doesn't belong in the spec. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Best regards, |
| 60 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
Archives