Re: [gentoo-dev] Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2015-08-15, o godz. 11:51:01
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a):

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:53:37 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-08-15, o godz. 10:50:02
> > Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:54:57 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > They will be OpenPGP signed by a releng key during thickening and
> > > > > portage will auto-verify it using gkeys once things are in place. As
> > > > > such checksum for ebuilds and other files certainly needs to be part
> > > > > of the manifest, otherwise it can open up for malicious alterations of
> > > > > these files.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As much as I'd love to see it all folded into git, the reality is also
> > > > that git signatures are only bound to files by a series of sha1
> > > > hashes, and sha1 is not a strong hash function.  Git really ought to
> > > > move to sha256 at some point, preferably in a manner that makes it
> > > > expandable in the future to other hash functions.  But, this isn't a
> > > > high-priority for upstream.
> > > >
> > > > The same limitation is true of any git gpg signature, including tag
> > > > signatures.  It is all held together by sha1.  The manifest system is
> > > > much stronger.
> > >
> > > OK, if manifests are that important, why not generate full manifest
> > > during repoman commit? If we do not tamper with $Id$, the only file
> > > outside of this manifest will be ChangeLog generated during rsync
> > > propagation. Then we have following options:
> > > - do not sing ChangeLog: even if it will be tampered, little harm
> > > can be done, since it doesn't affect live system or build process;
> > > - sign ChangeLog with releng key;
> > > - sign developer-signed manifest + ChangeLog with releng key. Thus
> > > we'll have double signature for most important files.
> >
> > How about we switch back to CVS if we're going to kill git anyway? It'd
> > at least save our time wasted by these pointless discussions.
>
> I don't understand your point. Please explain.
>
> I see nobody here talking about killing git. I see people concerned
> that git is not cryptographically secure enough, thus looking for
> gpg-signed manifests or other solutions.

I see you talking about introducing whole new bucket of merge
conflicts.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>