Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenPGP verification for gentoo-mirror repos
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:59:09
Message-Id: facda9b5-66a4-dea5-3608-64451330dbfe@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] OpenPGP verification for gentoo-mirror repos by "Michał Górny"
1 On 10/30/2016 01:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > Hi, everyone.
3 >
4 > Just a quick note: I've prepared a simple tool [1] to verify clones of
5 > gentoo-mirror repositories. It's still early WiP but can be easily used
6 > to verify a clone:
7 >
8 > $ ./verify-repo gentoo
9 > [/var/db/repos/gentoo]
10 > Untrusted signature on 42ccdf48d718287e981c00f25caea2242262906a
11 > (you may need to import/trust developer keys)
12 > Note: unsigned changes in metadata and/or caches found (it's fine)
13
14 I don't think it's acceptable to use an unsigned metadata/cache commit.
15 Can't we use an infrastructure key for this?
16
17
18 >
19 > It can take any number of repository names and/or paths on argv, or
20 > will verify all installed repositories if run without arguments.
21 >
22 > It has explicit support for unsigned cache update commits from
23 > gentoo-mirror (verifies the last signed commits and diffs it against
24 > HEAD); though it will probably get confused if signed commits out of
25 > metadata/ subrepos come (very rare case).
26 >
27 > Verification is done using git's default GPG magic. I'd like to
28 > improve it to use gkeys but the project still hasn't achieved
29 > the ability to run out-of-the-box without local hackery.
30
31 Is there an open bug for this? We really need gkeys to be usable.
32
33 >
34 > Oh, as a side note: since Portage defaults to --depth=1 clones,
35 > signatures are usually lost. I've submitted a patch to increase
36 > the default depth to 10.
37 >
38 > [1]:https://github.com/mgorny/verify-repo-mirror
39 >
40
41
42 --
43 Thanks,
44 Zac

Replies