1 |
Here's another version with a few clarification-class changes: |
2 |
|
3 |
62819e2 glep-0074: Clarify OPTIONAL desc |
4 |
e953eaf glep-0074: Add two example files for reference |
5 |
f98cabc glep-0074: Reorganize to have tag references after basic algos |
6 |
56b06b0 glep-0074: Rewrite the file verificaton to cover OPTIONAL |
7 |
bbabc4d glep-0074: Split 'Directory tree coverage' section out |
8 |
fe62b50 glep-0074: Apply more suggestions from Robin |
9 |
|
10 |
W dniu czw, 26.10.2017 o godzinie 22∶12 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny |
11 |
napisał: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> ReST: https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/glep-0074.rst |
14 |
> HTML: https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/glep-0074.html |
15 |
> impl: https://github.com/mgorny/gemato/ |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
--- |
19 |
GLEP: 74 |
20 |
Title: Full-tree verification using Manifest files |
21 |
Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>, |
22 |
Robin Hugh Johnson <robbat2@g.o>, |
23 |
Ulrich Müller <ulm@g.o> |
24 |
Type: Standards Track |
25 |
Status: Draft |
26 |
Version: 1 |
27 |
Created: 2017-10-21 |
28 |
Last-Modified: 2017-10-30 |
29 |
Post-History: 2017-10-26 |
30 |
Content-Type: text/x-rst |
31 |
Requires: 59, 61 |
32 |
Replaces: 44, 58, 60 |
33 |
--- |
34 |
|
35 |
Abstract |
36 |
======== |
37 |
|
38 |
This GLEP extends the Manifest file format to cover full-tree file |
39 |
integrity and authenticity checks.The format aims to be future-proof, |
40 |
efficient and provide means of backwards compatibility. |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
Motivation |
44 |
========== |
45 |
|
46 |
The Manifest files as defined by GLEP 44 [#GLEP44]_ provide the current |
47 |
means of verifying the integrity of distfiles and package files |
48 |
in Gentoo. Combined with OpenPGP signatures, they provide means to |
49 |
ensure the authenticity of the covered files. However, as noted |
50 |
in GLEP 57 [#GLEP57]_ they lack the ability to provide full-tree |
51 |
authenticity verification as they do not cover any files outside |
52 |
the package directory. In particular, they provide multiple ways |
53 |
for a third party to inject malicious code into the ebuild environment. |
54 |
|
55 |
Historically, the topic of providing authenticity coverage for the whole |
56 |
repository has been mentioned multiple times. The most noteworthy effort |
57 |
are GLEPs 58 [#GLEP58]_ and 60 [#GLEP60]_ by Robin H. Johnson from 2008. |
58 |
They were accepted by the Council in 2010 but have never been |
59 |
implemented. When potential implementation work started in 2017, a new |
60 |
discussion about the specification arose. It prompted the creation |
61 |
of a competing GLEP that would provide a redesigned alternative to |
62 |
the old GLEPs. |
63 |
|
64 |
This specification is designed with the following goals in mind: |
65 |
|
66 |
1. It should provide means to ensure the authenticity of the complete |
67 |
repository, including preventing the injection of additional files. |
68 |
|
69 |
2. Like the original Manifest2, the files should be split into two |
70 |
groups — files whose authenticity is critical, and those whose |
71 |
mismatch may be accepted in non-strict mode. The same classification |
72 |
should apply both to files listed in Manifests, and to stray files |
73 |
present only in the repository. |
74 |
|
75 |
3. The format should be universal enough to work both for the Gentoo |
76 |
repository and third-party repositories of different characteristics. |
77 |
|
78 |
4. The Manifest files should be verifiable stand-alone, that is without |
79 |
knowing any details about the underlying repository format. |
80 |
|
81 |
|
82 |
Specification |
83 |
============= |
84 |
|
85 |
Manifest file format |
86 |
-------------------- |
87 |
|
88 |
This specification reuses and extends the Manifest file format defined |
89 |
in GLEP 44 [#GLEP44]_. For the purpose of it, the *file type* field is |
90 |
repurposed as a generic *tag* that could also indicate additional |
91 |
(non-checksum) metadata. Appropriately, those tags can be followed by |
92 |
other space-separated values. |
93 |
|
94 |
Unless specified otherwise, the paths used in the Manifest files |
95 |
are relative to the directory containing the Manifest file. The paths |
96 |
must not reference the parent directory (``..``). |
97 |
|
98 |
|
99 |
Manifest file locations and nesting |
100 |
----------------------------------- |
101 |
|
102 |
The ``Manifest`` file located in the root directory of the repository |
103 |
is called top-level Manifest, and it is used to perform the full-tree |
104 |
verification. In order to verify the authenticity, it must be signed |
105 |
using OpenPGP, using the armored cleartext format. |
106 |
|
107 |
The top-level Manifest may reference sub-Manifests contained |
108 |
in subdirectories of the repository. The sub-Manifests are traditionally |
109 |
named ``Manifest``; however, the implementation must support arbitrary |
110 |
names, including the possibility of multiple (split) Manifests |
111 |
for a single directory. The sub-Manifest can only cover the files inside |
112 |
the directory tree where it resides. |
113 |
|
114 |
The sub-Manifest can also be signed using OpenPGP armored cleartext |
115 |
format. However, the signature verification can be omitted if it is |
116 |
covered by a signed top-level Manifest. |
117 |
|
118 |
|
119 |
Directory tree coverage |
120 |
----------------------- |
121 |
|
122 |
The Manifest files can also specify ``IGNORE`` entries to skip Manifest |
123 |
verification of subdirectories and/or files. The package manager can |
124 |
support injecting ignore paths to account for additional files created, |
125 |
modified or removed by user's processes that would not be ignored |
126 |
by existing rules. Files and directories starting with a dot are always |
127 |
implicitly ignored. All files that are not ignored must be covered |
128 |
by at least one of the Manifests. |
129 |
|
130 |
A single file may be matched by multiple identical or equivalent |
131 |
Manifest entries, if and only if the entries have the same semantics, |
132 |
specify the same size and the checksums common to both entries match. |
133 |
It is an error for a single file to be matched by multiple entries |
134 |
of different semantics, file size or checksum values. It is an error |
135 |
to specify another entry for a file matching ``IGNORE``, or one of its |
136 |
subdirectories. |
137 |
|
138 |
The file entries (except for ``IGNORE``) can be specified for regular |
139 |
files only. Symbolic links are followed when opening files. It is |
140 |
an error to specify an entry for a different file type. |
141 |
|
142 |
All the local (non-``DIST``) files covered by a Manifest tree must |
143 |
reside on the same filesystem. It is an error to specify entries |
144 |
applying to files on another filesystem. If subdirectories |
145 |
of the Manifest tree reside on a different filesystem, they must |
146 |
be explicitly excluded via ``IGNORE``. |
147 |
|
148 |
|
149 |
File verification |
150 |
----------------- |
151 |
|
152 |
When verifying a file against the Manifest, the following rules are |
153 |
used: |
154 |
|
155 |
1. If the file is covered directly or indirectly by an entry |
156 |
of the ``IGNORE`` type, the verification always succeeds. |
157 |
|
158 |
2. If the file is covered by an entry of the ``MANIFEST``, ``DATA``, |
159 |
``MISC``, ``EBUILD`` or ``AUX`` type: |
160 |
|
161 |
a. if the file is not present, then the verification fails, |
162 |
|
163 |
b. if the file is present but has a different size or one |
164 |
of the checksums does not match, the verification fails, |
165 |
|
166 |
c. otherwise, the verification succeeds. |
167 |
|
168 |
3. If the file is covered by an entry of the ``OPTIONAL`` type: |
169 |
|
170 |
a. if the file is present, then the verification fails, |
171 |
|
172 |
b. otherwise, the verification succeeds. |
173 |
|
174 |
4. If the file is present but not listed in Manifest, the verification |
175 |
fails. |
176 |
|
177 |
Unless specified otherwise, the package manager must not allow using |
178 |
any files for which the verification failed. The package manager may |
179 |
reject any package or even the whole repository if it may refer to files |
180 |
for which the verification failed. |
181 |
|
182 |
|
183 |
Timestamp verification |
184 |
---------------------- |
185 |
|
186 |
The Manifest file can contain a ``TIMESTAMP`` entry to account |
187 |
for attacks against tree update distribution. If such an entry |
188 |
is present, it should be updated every time at least one |
189 |
of the Manifests changes. Every unique timestamp value must correspond |
190 |
to a single tree state. |
191 |
|
192 |
During the verification process, the client should compare the timestamp |
193 |
against the update time obtained from a local clock or a trusted time |
194 |
source. If the comparison result indicates that the Manifest at the time |
195 |
of receiving was already significantly outdated, the client should |
196 |
either fail the verification or require manual confirmation from user. |
197 |
|
198 |
Furthermore, the Manifest provider may employ additional methods |
199 |
of distributing the timestamps of recently generated Manifests |
200 |
using a secure channel from a trusted source for exact comparison. |
201 |
The exact details of such a solution are outside the scope of this |
202 |
specification. |
203 |
|
204 |
|
205 |
Modern Manifest tags |
206 |
-------------------- |
207 |
|
208 |
The Manifest files can specify the following tags: |
209 |
|
210 |
``TIMESTAMP <iso8601>`` |
211 |
Specifies a timestamp of when the Manifest file was last updated. |
212 |
The timestamp must be a valid second-precision ISO8601 extended format |
213 |
combined date and time in UTC timezone, i.e. using the following |
214 |
``strftime()`` format string: ``%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ``. Optionally used |
215 |
in the top-level Manifest file. The package manager can use it |
216 |
to detect an outdated repository checkout as described in `Timestamp |
217 |
verification`_. |
218 |
|
219 |
``MANIFEST <path> <size> <checksums>…`` |
220 |
Specifies a sub-Manifest. The sub-Manifest must be verified like |
221 |
a regular file. If the verification succeeds, the entries from |
222 |
the sub-Manifest are included for verification as described |
223 |
in `Manifest file locations and nesting`_. |
224 |
|
225 |
``IGNORE <path>`` |
226 |
Ignores a subdirectory or file from Manifest checks. If the specified |
227 |
path is present, it and its contents are omitted from the Manifest |
228 |
verification (always pass). |
229 |
|
230 |
``DATA <path> <size> <checksums>…`` |
231 |
Specifies a file subject to obligatory Manifest verification. |
232 |
The file is required to pass verification. Used for all files directly |
233 |
affecting package manager operation (ebuilds, eclasses, profiles). |
234 |
|
235 |
``MISC <path> <size> <checksums>…`` |
236 |
Specifies a file subject to non-obligatory Manifest verification. |
237 |
The package manager may ignore a verification failure if operating |
238 |
in non-strict mode. Used for files that do not affect the installed |
239 |
packages (``metadata.xml``, ``use.desc``). |
240 |
|
241 |
``OPTIONAL <path>`` |
242 |
Specifies a file that does not exist in the distribution but if it |
243 |
did, it would be marked as ``MISC``. In the strict mode, the file |
244 |
must not exist for the verification to pass. The package manager |
245 |
may ignore a stray file matching this entry if operating in non-strict |
246 |
mode. |
247 |
|
248 |
``DIST <filename> <size> <checksums>…`` |
249 |
Specifies a distfile entry used to verify files fetched as part |
250 |
of ``SRC_URI``. The filename must match the filename used to store |
251 |
the fetched file as specified in the PMS [#PMS-FETCH]_. The package |
252 |
manager must reject the fetched file if it fails verification. |
253 |
``DIST`` entries apply to all packages below the Manifest file |
254 |
specifying them. |
255 |
|
256 |
|
257 |
Deprecated Manifest tags |
258 |
------------------------ |
259 |
|
260 |
For backwards compatibility, the following tags are additionally |
261 |
allowed at the package directory level: |
262 |
|
263 |
``EBUILD <filename> <size> <checksums>…`` |
264 |
Equivalent to the ``DATA`` type. |
265 |
|
266 |
``AUX <filename> <size> <checksums>…`` |
267 |
Equivalent to the ``DATA`` type, except that the filename is relative |
268 |
to ``files/`` subdirectory. |
269 |
|
270 |
|
271 |
Algorithm for full-tree verification |
272 |
------------------------------------ |
273 |
|
274 |
In order to perform full-tree verification, the following algorithm |
275 |
can be used: |
276 |
|
277 |
1. Collect all files present in the repository into *present* set. |
278 |
|
279 |
2. Start at the top-level Manifest file. Verify its OpenPGP signature. |
280 |
Optionally verify the ``TIMESTAMP`` entry if present as specified |
281 |
in `timestamp verification`. Remove the top-level Manifest |
282 |
from the *present* set. |
283 |
|
284 |
3. Process all ``MANIFEST`` entries, recursively. Verify the Manifest |
285 |
files according to `file verification`_ section, and include their |
286 |
entries in the current Manifest entry list (using paths relative |
287 |
to directories containing the Manifests). |
288 |
|
289 |
4. Process all ``IGNORE`` entries. Remove any paths matching them |
290 |
from the *present* set. |
291 |
|
292 |
5. Collect all files covered by ``DATA``, ``MISC``, ``OPTIONAL``, |
293 |
``EBUILD`` and ``AUX`` entries into the *covered* set. |
294 |
|
295 |
6. Verify the entries in *covered* set for incompatible duplicates |
296 |
and collisions with ignored files as explained in `Manifest file |
297 |
locations and nesting`_. |
298 |
|
299 |
7. Verify all the files in the union of the *present* and *covered* |
300 |
sets, according to `file verification`_ section. |
301 |
|
302 |
|
303 |
Algorithm for finding parent Manifests |
304 |
-------------------------------------- |
305 |
|
306 |
In order to find the top-level Manifest from the current directory |
307 |
the following algorithm can be used: |
308 |
|
309 |
1. Store the current directory as *original* and the device ID |
310 |
of the containing filesystem (``st_dev``) as *startdev*, |
311 |
|
312 |
2. If the device ID of the containing filesystem (``st_dev``) |
313 |
of the current directory is different than *startdev*, stop. |
314 |
|
315 |
3. If the current directory contains a ``Manifest`` file: |
316 |
|
317 |
a. If a ``IGNORE`` entry in the ``Manifest`` file covers |
318 |
the *original* directory (or one of the parent directories), stop. |
319 |
|
320 |
b. Otherwise, store the current directory as *last_found*. |
321 |
|
322 |
4. If the current directory is the root system directory (``/``), stop. |
323 |
|
324 |
5. Otherwise, enter the parent directory and jump to step 2. |
325 |
|
326 |
Once the algorithm stops, *last_found* will contain the relevant |
327 |
top-level Manifest. If *last_found* is null, then the directory tree |
328 |
does not contain any valid top-level Manifest candidates and one should |
329 |
be created in the *original* directory. |
330 |
|
331 |
Once the top-level Manifest is found, its ``MANIFEST`` entries should |
332 |
be used to find any sub-Manifests below the top-level Manifest, |
333 |
up to and including the *original* directory. Note that those |
334 |
sub-Manifests can use different filenames than ``Manifest``. |
335 |
|
336 |
|
337 |
Checksum algorithms |
338 |
------------------- |
339 |
|
340 |
This section is informational only. Specifying the exact set |
341 |
of supported algorithms is outside the scope of this specification. |
342 |
|
343 |
The algorithm names reserved at the time of writing are: |
344 |
|
345 |
- ``MD5`` [#MD5]_, |
346 |
- ``RMD160`` — RIPEMD-160 [#RIPEMD160]_, |
347 |
- ``SHA1`` [#SHS]_, |
348 |
- ``SHA256`` and ``SHA512`` — SHA-2 family of hashes [#SHS]_, |
349 |
- ``WHIRLPOOL`` [#WHIRLPOOL]_, |
350 |
- ``BLAKE2B`` and ``BLAKE2S`` — BLAKE2 family of hashes [#BLAKE2]_, |
351 |
- ``SHA3_256`` and ``SHA3_512`` — SHA-3 family of hashes [#SHA3]_, |
352 |
- ``STREEBOG256`` and ``STREEBOG512`` — Streebog family of hashes |
353 |
[#STREEBOG]_. |
354 |
|
355 |
The method of introducing new hashes is defined by GLEP 59 [#GLEP59]_. |
356 |
It is recommended that any new hashes are named after the Python |
357 |
``hashlib`` module algorithm names, transformed into uppercase. |
358 |
|
359 |
|
360 |
Manifest compression |
361 |
-------------------- |
362 |
|
363 |
The topic of Manifest file compression is covered by GLEP 61 [#GLEP61]_. |
364 |
This section merely addresses interoperability issues between Manifest |
365 |
compression and this specification. |
366 |
|
367 |
The compressed Manifest files are required to be suffixed for their |
368 |
compression algorithm. This suffix should be used to recognize |
369 |
the compression and decompress Manifests transparently. The exact list |
370 |
of algorithms and their corresponding suffixes are outside the scope |
371 |
of this specification. |
372 |
|
373 |
Whenever this specification refers to top-level Manifest file, |
374 |
the implementation should account for compressed variants of this file |
375 |
with appropriate suffixes (e.g. ``Manifest.gz``). |
376 |
|
377 |
Whenever this specification refers to sub-Manifests, they can use any |
378 |
names but are also required to use a specific compression suffix. |
379 |
The ``MANIFEST`` entries are required to specify the full name including |
380 |
compression suffix, and the verification is performed on the compressed |
381 |
file. |
382 |
|
383 |
The specification permits uncompressed Manifests to exist alongside |
384 |
their compressed counterparts, and multiple compressed formats |
385 |
to coexist. If that is the case, the files must have the same |
386 |
uncompressed content and the specification is free to choose either |
387 |
of the files using the same base name. |
388 |
|
389 |
|
390 |
An example Manifest file (informational) |
391 |
---------------------------------------- |
392 |
|
393 |
An example top-level Manifest file for the Gentoo repository would have |
394 |
the following content:: |
395 |
|
396 |
TIMESTAMP 2017-10-30T10:11:12Z |
397 |
IGNORE distfiles |
398 |
IGNORE local |
399 |
IGNORE lost+found |
400 |
IGNORE packages |
401 |
MANIFEST app-accessibility/Manifest 14821 SHA256 1b5f.. SHA512 |
402 |
f7eb.. |
403 |
... |
404 |
MANIFEST eclass/Manifest.gz 50812 SHA256 8c55.. SHA512 2915.. |
405 |
... |
406 |
|
407 |
An example modern Manifest (disregarding backwards compatibility) |
408 |
for a package directory would have the following content:: |
409 |
|
410 |
DATA SphinxTrain-0.9.1-r1.ebuild 932 SHA256 3d3b.. SHA512 be4d.. |
411 |
DATA SphinxTrain-1.0.8.ebuild 912 SHA256 f681.. SHA512 0749.. |
412 |
DATA files/gcc.patch 816 SHA256 b56e.. SHA512 2468.. |
413 |
DATA files/gcc34.patch 333 SHA256 c107.. SHA512 9919.. |
414 |
DIST SphinxTrain-0.9.1-beta.tar.gz 469617 SHA256 c1a4.. SHA512 |
415 |
1b33.. |
416 |
DIST sphinxtrain-1.0.8.tar.gz 8925803 SHA256 548e.. SHA512 465d.. |
417 |
MISC metadata.xml 664 SHA256 97c6.. SHA512 1175.. |
418 |
|
419 |
|
420 |
Rationale |
421 |
========= |
422 |
|
423 |
Stand-alone format |
424 |
------------------ |
425 |
|
426 |
The first question that needed to be asked before proceeding with |
427 |
the design was whether the Manifest file format was supposed to be |
428 |
stand-alone, or tightly bound to the repository format. |
429 |
|
430 |
The stand-alone format has been selected because of its three |
431 |
advantages: |
432 |
|
433 |
1. It is more future-proof. If an incompatible change to the repository |
434 |
format is introduced, only developers need to be upgrade the tools |
435 |
they use to generate the Manifests. The tools used to verify |
436 |
the updated Manifests will continue to work. |
437 |
|
438 |
2. It is more flexible and universal. With a dedicated tool, |
439 |
the Manifest files can be used to sign and verify arbitrary file |
440 |
sets. |
441 |
|
442 |
3. It keeps the verification tool simpler. In particular, we can easily |
443 |
write an independent verification tool that could work on any |
444 |
distribution without needing to depend on a package manager |
445 |
implementation or rewrite parts of it. |
446 |
|
447 |
Designing a stand-alone format requires that the Manifest carries enough |
448 |
information to perform the verification following all the rules specific |
449 |
to the Gentoo repository. |
450 |
|
451 |
|
452 |
Tree design |
453 |
----------- |
454 |
|
455 |
The second important point of the design was determining whether |
456 |
the Manifest files should be structured hierarchically, or independent. |
457 |
Both options have their advantages. |
458 |
|
459 |
In the hierarchical model, each sub-Manifest file is covered by a higher |
460 |
level Manifest. As a result, only the top-level Manifest has to be |
461 |
OpenPGP-signed, and subsequent Manifests need to be only verified by |
462 |
checksum stored in the parent Manifest. This has the following |
463 |
implications: |
464 |
|
465 |
- Verifying any set of files in the repository requires using checksums |
466 |
from the most relevant Manifests and the parent Manifests. |
467 |
|
468 |
- The OpenPGP signature of the top-level Manifest needs to be verified |
469 |
only once per process. |
470 |
|
471 |
- Altering any set of files requires updating the relevant Manifests, |
472 |
and their parent Manifests up to the top-level Manifest, and signing |
473 |
the last one. |
474 |
|
475 |
- As a result, the top-level Manifest changes on every commit, |
476 |
and various middle-level Manifests change (and need to be transferred) |
477 |
frequently. |
478 |
|
479 |
In the independent model, each sub-Manifest file is independent |
480 |
of the parent Manifests. As a result, each of them needs to be signed |
481 |
and verified independently. However, the parent Manifests still need |
482 |
to list sub-Manifests (albeit without verification data) in order |
483 |
to detect removal or replacement of subdirectories. This has |
484 |
the following implications: |
485 |
|
486 |
- Verifying any set of files in the repository requires using checksums |
487 |
and verifying signatures of the most relevant Manifest files. |
488 |
|
489 |
- Altering any set of files requires updating the relevant Manifests |
490 |
and signing them again. |
491 |
|
492 |
- Parent Manifests are updated only when Manifests are added or removed |
493 |
from subdirectories. As a result, they change infrequently. |
494 |
|
495 |
While both models have their advantages, the hierarchical model was |
496 |
selected because it reduces the number of OpenPGP operations |
497 |
which are comparatively costly to the minimum. |
498 |
|
499 |
|
500 |
Tree layout restrictions |
501 |
------------------------ |
502 |
|
503 |
The algorithm is meant to work primarily with ebuild repositories which |
504 |
normally contain only files and directories. Directories provide |
505 |
no useful metadata for verification, and specifying special entries |
506 |
for additional file types is purposeless. Therefore, the specification |
507 |
is restricted to dealing with regular files. |
508 |
|
509 |
The Gentoo repository does not use symbolic links. Some Gentoo |
510 |
repositories do, however. To provide a simple solution for dealing with |
511 |
symlinks without having to take care to implement special handling for |
512 |
them, the common behavior of implicitly resolving them is used. |
513 |
Therefore, symbolic links to files are stored as if they were regular |
514 |
files, and symbolic links to directories are followed as if they were |
515 |
regular directories. |
516 |
|
517 |
Dotfiles are implicitly ignored as that is a common notion used |
518 |
in software written for POSIX systems. All other filenames require |
519 |
explicit ``IGNORE`` lines. |
520 |
|
521 |
The algorithm is restricted to work on a single filesystem. This is |
522 |
mostly relevant when scanning for top-level Manifest — we do not want |
523 |
to cross filesystem boundaries then. However, to ensure consistent |
524 |
bidirectional behavior we need to also ban them when operating downwards |
525 |
the tree. |
526 |
|
527 |
The directories and files on different filesystems needs to be ignored |
528 |
explicitly as implicitly skipping them would cause confusion. |
529 |
In particular, tools might then claim that a file does not exist when |
530 |
it clearly does because it was skipped due to filesystem boundaries. |
531 |
|
532 |
|
533 |
File verification model |
534 |
----------------------- |
535 |
|
536 |
The verification model aims to provide full coverage against different |
537 |
forms of attack. In particular, three different kinds of manipulation |
538 |
are considered: |
539 |
|
540 |
1. Alteration of the file content. |
541 |
|
542 |
2. Removal of a file. |
543 |
|
544 |
3. Addition of a new file. |
545 |
|
546 |
In order to prevent against all three, the system requires that all |
547 |
files in the repository are listed in Manifests and verified against |
548 |
them. |
549 |
|
550 |
As a special case, ignores are allowed to account for directories |
551 |
that are not part of the repository but were traditionally placed inside |
552 |
it. Those directories were ``distfiles``, ``local`` and ``packages``. It |
553 |
could be also used to ignore VCS directories such as ``CVS``. |
554 |
|
555 |
|
556 |
Non-obligatory Manifest verification |
557 |
------------------------------------ |
558 |
|
559 |
While this specification recommends all tools to use strict verification |
560 |
by default, it allows declaring some files as non-obligatory like |
561 |
the original Manifest2 format did. This could be used on files that do |
562 |
not affect the normal package manager operation. |
563 |
|
564 |
It aims to account for two use cases: |
565 |
|
566 |
1. Stripping down files that are not strictly required to install |
567 |
packages from repository checkouts. |
568 |
|
569 |
2. Accounting for automatically generated files that might be updated |
570 |
by standard tooling. |
571 |
|
572 |
The traditional ``MISC`` type is amended with a complementary |
573 |
``OPTIONAL`` tag to account for files that are not provided |
574 |
in the specific repository. It aims to ensure that the same path would |
575 |
be non-fatal when provided by the repository but fatal when created |
576 |
by the user tooling. |
577 |
|
578 |
|
579 |
Timestamp field |
580 |
--------------- |
581 |
|
582 |
The top-level Manifests optionally allows using a ``TIMESTAMP`` tag |
583 |
to include a generation timestamp in the Manifest. A similar feature |
584 |
was originally proposed in GLEP 58 [#GLEP58]_. |
585 |
|
586 |
A malicious third-party may use the principles of exclusion or replay |
587 |
[#C08]_ to deny an update to clients, while at the same time recording |
588 |
the identity of clients to attack. The timestamp field can be used to |
589 |
detect that. |
590 |
|
591 |
In order to provide a more complete protection, the Gentoo |
592 |
Infrastructure should provide an ability to obtain the timestamps |
593 |
of all Manifests from a recent timeframe over a secure channel |
594 |
from a trusted source for comparison. |
595 |
|
596 |
Strictly speaking, this information is already provided by the various |
597 |
``metadata/timestamp*`` files that are already present. However, |
598 |
including the value in the Manifest itself has a little cost |
599 |
and provides the ability to perform the verification stand-alone. |
600 |
|
601 |
Furthermore, some of the timestamp files are added very late |
602 |
in the distribution process, past the Manifest generation phase. Those |
603 |
files will most likely receive ``IGNORE`` entries and therefore |
604 |
be not suitable to safe use. |
605 |
|
606 |
|
607 |
New vs deprecated tags |
608 |
---------------------- |
609 |
|
610 |
Out of the four types defined by Manifest2, two are reused and two are |
611 |
marked deprecated. |
612 |
|
613 |
The ``DIST`` and ``MISC`` tags are reused since they can be relatively |
614 |
clearly marked into the new concept. |
615 |
|
616 |
The ``EBUILD`` tag could potentially be reused for generic file |
617 |
verification data. However, it would be confusing if all the different |
618 |
data files were marked as ``EBUILD``. Therefore, an equivalent ``DATA`` |
619 |
type was introduced as a replacement. |
620 |
|
621 |
The ``AUX`` tag is deprecated as it is redundant to ``DATA``, and has |
622 |
the limiting property of implicit ``files/`` path prefix. |
623 |
|
624 |
|
625 |
Finding top-level Manifest |
626 |
-------------------------- |
627 |
|
628 |
The development of a reference implementation for this GLEP has brought |
629 |
the following problem: how to find all the relevant Manifests when |
630 |
the Manifest tool is run inside a subdirectory of the repository? |
631 |
|
632 |
One of the options would be to provide a bi-directional linking |
633 |
of Manifests via a ``PARENT`` tag. However, that would not solve |
634 |
the problem when a new Manifest file is being created. |
635 |
|
636 |
Instead, an algorithm for iterating over parent directories is proposed. |
637 |
Since there is no obligatory explicit indicator for the top-level |
638 |
Manifest, the algorithm assumes that the top-level Manifest |
639 |
is the highest ``Manifest`` in the directory hierarchy that can cover |
640 |
the current directory. This generally makes sense since the Manifest |
641 |
files are required to provide coverage for all subdirectories, so all |
642 |
Manifests starting from that one need to be updated. |
643 |
|
644 |
If independent Manifest trees are nested in the directory structure, |
645 |
then an ``IGNORE`` entry needs to be used to separate them. |
646 |
|
647 |
Since sub-Manifests can use any filenames, the Manifest finding |
648 |
algorithm must not short-cut the procedure by storing all ``Manifest`` |
649 |
files along the parent directories. Instead, it needs to retrace |
650 |
the relevant sub-Manifest files along ``MANIFEST`` entries |
651 |
in the top-level Manifest. |
652 |
|
653 |
|
654 |
Injecting ChangeLogs into the checkout |
655 |
-------------------------------------- |
656 |
|
657 |
One of the problems considered in the new Manifest format was that |
658 |
of injecting historical and autogenerated ChangeLog into the repository. |
659 |
Normally we are not including those files to reduce the checkout size. |
660 |
However, some users have shown interest in them and Infra is working |
661 |
on providing them via an additional rsync module. |
662 |
|
663 |
If such files were injected into the repository, they would cause strict |
664 |
verification failures of Manifests. To account for this, Infra could |
665 |
provide either ``OPTIONAL`` entries for the Manifest files to allow them |
666 |
in non-strict verification mode, or ``IGNORE`` entries to allow them |
667 |
in the strict mode. |
668 |
|
669 |
|
670 |
Splitting distfile checksums from file checksums |
671 |
------------------------------------------------ |
672 |
|
673 |
Another problem with the current Manifest format is that the checksums |
674 |
for fetched files are combined with checksums for local files |
675 |
in a single file inside the package directory. It has been specifically |
676 |
pointed out that: |
677 |
|
678 |
- since distfiles are sometimes reused across different packages, |
679 |
the repeating checksums are redundant, |
680 |
|
681 |
- mirror admins were interested in the possibility of verifying all |
682 |
the distfiles with a single tool. |
683 |
|
684 |
This specification does not provide a clean solution to this problem. |
685 |
It technically permits moving ``DIST`` entries to higher-level Manifests |
686 |
but the usefulness of such a solution is doubtful. |
687 |
|
688 |
However, for the second problem we will probably deliver a dedicated |
689 |
tool working with this Manifest format. |
690 |
|
691 |
|
692 |
Hash algorithms |
693 |
--------------- |
694 |
|
695 |
While maintaining a consistent supported hash set is important |
696 |
for interoperability, it is no good fit for the generic layout of this |
697 |
GLEP. Furthermore, it would require updating the GLEP in the future |
698 |
every time the used algorithms change. |
699 |
|
700 |
Instead, the specification focuses on listing the currently used |
701 |
algorithm names for interoperability, and sets a recommendation |
702 |
for consistent naming of algorithms in the future. The Python |
703 |
``hashlib`` module is used as a reference since it is used |
704 |
as the provider of hash functions for most of the Python software, |
705 |
including Portage and PkgCore. |
706 |
|
707 |
The basic rules for changing hash algorithms are defined in GLEP 59 |
708 |
[#GLEP59]_. The implementations can focus only on those algorithms |
709 |
that are actually used or planned on being used. It may be feasible |
710 |
to devise a new GLEP that specifies the currently used hashes (or update |
711 |
GLEP 59 accordingly). |
712 |
|
713 |
|
714 |
Manifest compression |
715 |
-------------------- |
716 |
|
717 |
The support for Manifest compression is introduced with minimal changes |
718 |
to the file format. The ``MANIFEST`` entries are required to provide |
719 |
the real (compressed) file path for compatibility with other file |
720 |
entries and to avoid confusion. |
721 |
|
722 |
The existence of additional entries for uncompressed Manifest checksums |
723 |
was debated. However, plain entries for the uncompressed file would |
724 |
be confusing if only compressed file existed, and conflicting if both |
725 |
uncompressed and compressed variants existed. Furthermore, it has been |
726 |
pointed out that ``DIST`` entries do not have uncompressed variant |
727 |
either. |
728 |
|
729 |
|
730 |
Performance considerations |
731 |
-------------------------- |
732 |
|
733 |
Performing a full-tree verification on every sync raises some |
734 |
performance concerns for end-user systems. The initial testing has shown |
735 |
that a cold-cache verification on a btrfs file system can take up around |
736 |
4 minutes, with the process being mostly I/O bound. On the other hand, |
737 |
it can be expected that the verification will be performed directly |
738 |
after syncing, taking advantage of warm filesystem cache. |
739 |
|
740 |
To improve speed on I/O and/or CPU-restrained systems even further, |
741 |
the algorithms can be easily extended to perform incremental |
742 |
verification. Given that rsync does not preserve mtimes by default, |
743 |
the tool can take advantage of mtime and Manifest comparisons to recheck |
744 |
only the parts of the repository that have changed. |
745 |
|
746 |
Furthermore, the package manager implementations can restrict checking |
747 |
only to the parts of the repository that are actually being used. |
748 |
|
749 |
|
750 |
Backwards Compatibility |
751 |
======================= |
752 |
|
753 |
This GLEP provides optional means of preserving backwards compatibility. |
754 |
To preserve the backwards compatibility, the following needs to be |
755 |
ensured: |
756 |
|
757 |
- all files within the package directory must be covered by ``Manifest`` |
758 |
file inside that package directory, |
759 |
|
760 |
- all distfiles used by the package must be covered by ``Manifest`` |
761 |
file inside the package directory, |
762 |
|
763 |
- all files inside the ``files/`` subdirectory of a package directory |
764 |
need to be use the deprecated ``AUX`` tag (rather than ``DATA``), |
765 |
|
766 |
- all ``.ebuild`` files inside the package directory need to use |
767 |
the deprecated ``EBUILD`` tag (rather than ``DATA``), |
768 |
|
769 |
- the Manifest files inside the package directory can be signed |
770 |
to provide authenticity verification, |
771 |
|
772 |
- an uncompressed Manifest file must exist in the package directory, |
773 |
and a compressed Manifest of identical content may be present. |
774 |
|
775 |
Once the backwards compatibility is no longer a concern, the above |
776 |
no longer needs to hold and the deprecated tags can be removed. |
777 |
|
778 |
|
779 |
Reference Implementation |
780 |
======================== |
781 |
|
782 |
The reference implementation for this GLEP is being developed |
783 |
as the gemato project [#GEMATO]_. |
784 |
|
785 |
|
786 |
Credits |
787 |
======= |
788 |
|
789 |
Thanks to all the people whose contributions were invaluable |
790 |
to the creation of this GLEP. This includes but is not limited to: |
791 |
|
792 |
- Robin Hugh Johnson, |
793 |
- Ulrich Müller. |
794 |
|
795 |
Additionally, thanks to Robin Hugh Johnson for the original |
796 |
MataManifest GLEP series which served both as inspiration and source |
797 |
of many concepts used in this GLEP. Recursively, also thanks to all |
798 |
the people who contributed to the original GLEPs. |
799 |
|
800 |
|
801 |
References |
802 |
========== |
803 |
|
804 |
.. [#GLEP44] GLEP 44: Manifest2 format |
805 |
(https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0044.html) |
806 |
|
807 |
.. [#GLEP57] GLEP 57: Security of distribution of Gentoo software |
808 |
- Overview |
809 |
(https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0057.html) |
810 |
|
811 |
.. [#GLEP58] GLEP 58: Security of distribution of Gentoo software |
812 |
- Infrastructure to User distribution - MetaManifest |
813 |
(https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0058.html) |
814 |
|
815 |
.. [#GLEP59] GLEP 59: Manifest2 hash policies and security implications |
816 |
(https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0059.html) |
817 |
|
818 |
.. [#GLEP60] GLEP 60: Manifest2 filetypes |
819 |
(https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0060.html) |
820 |
|
821 |
.. [#GLEP61] GLEP 61: Manifest2 compression |
822 |
(https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0061.html) |
823 |
|
824 |
.. [#PMS-FETCH] Package Manager Specification: Dependency Specification |
825 |
Format - SRC_URI |
826 |
(https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-940008.2.10) |
827 |
|
828 |
.. [#MD5] RFC1321: The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm |
829 |
(https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt) |
830 |
|
831 |
.. [#RIPEMD160] The hash function RIPEMD-160 |
832 |
(https://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~bosselae/ripemd160.html) |
833 |
|
834 |
.. [#SHS] FIPS PUB 180-4: Secure Hash Standard (SHS) |
835 |
(http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.180-4.pdf) |
836 |
|
837 |
.. [#WHIRLPOOL] The WHIRLPOOL Hash Function |
838 |
(http://www.larc.usp.br/~pbarreto/WhirlpoolPage.html) |
839 |
|
840 |
.. [#BLAKE2] BLAKE2 — fast secure hashing |
841 |
(https://blake2.net/) |
842 |
|
843 |
.. [#SHA3] FIPS PUB 202: SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash |
844 |
and Extendable-Output Functions |
845 |
(http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.202.pdf) |
846 |
|
847 |
.. [#STREEBOG] GOST R 34.11-2012: Streebog Hash Function |
848 |
(https://www.streebog.net/) |
849 |
|
850 |
.. [#C08] Cappos, J et al. (2008). "Attacks on Package Managers" |
851 |
(https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/stork/packagemanagersecurity/attacks-on- |
852 |
package-managers.html) |
853 |
|
854 |
.. [#GEMATO] gemato: Gentoo Manifest Tool |
855 |
(https://github.com/mgorny/gemato/) |
856 |
|
857 |
Copyright |
858 |
========= |
859 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike |
860 |
3.0 |
861 |
Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit |
862 |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. |
863 |
|
864 |
-- |
865 |
Best regards, |
866 |
Michał Górny |