I created thread at bui...@apache.org: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf2af2a95e7687fe94ede23fe9df388f784c8231a5968b109f677cbe8%40%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E
Let's see what other projects/infra say about this. J. On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > I'd love to see if that's also something that bothers others, not only me > - maybe it's just me being over-cautious :). > > > Some more context the whole issue was originated by this comment of Aneesh > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/9371#discussion_r442657586 with > the "helm-unittest" image by Aneesh. > > @Ash - The only problem I recall with images so far was some hadolint > image releases (we did not have it pinned before). And I am not too much > worried about Astronomer's images. We might also simply agree - as > community - to use Astronomer's ones as "official" images if > Astronomer makes those "officially" available :) - in which case they might > fall into the 1) camp. > > But I think it's a good question to ask what others are doing - I am going > to ask at the build@ devlist to see what other projects/infra and general > ASF approach about it is. I'd love to hear how other Apache projects are > dealing with it. > > J. > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Licensing wise there is no issue from me: The astronomerinc images are >> just re-packaging of the upstream images to apply security fixes so are >> licensed under whatever the original image is (MIT or Apache2 usually, >> else we wouldn't have put them in the helm chart PR) >> >> For background, the reason that we at Astronomer created >> ap-pgbouncer-exporter in the first place is that the upstream package >> does not patch/rebuild to address security vulnerabilities. By taking >> this in to airflow-ext it means we as a project become responsible for >> monitoring and testing that. (And don't be fooled in to thinking the >> free scanners can detect all vulns here, we've found them to be very of >> variable, and questionable accuracy.) >> >> That is a non-trivial amount of work for an open source project. >> >> Has this ever caused us any problems outside of Pip/python dependencies? >> (I'm not aware of any.) For runtime this maybe makes sense (again, I'm >> not yet convinced), but for test-only/dev-only deps this seems like a >> lot of work that we could better spend on working on Airflow. If we pin >> versions of docker image used then the only real risk is a left-pad >> scenario of "I'm deleting all my images" which is a minor risk. >> >> Do any other project do anything like this? I haven't seen it before. >> >> I'd vote for doing nothing and addressing this in specific cases when it >> becomes a problem. Because I do not see using thidy party docker images >> as a risk. I see it as a time saving measure. >> >> -ash >> >> On Jun 22 2020, at 1:42 pm, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > TL;DR; I noticed that we are accumulating some dependencies to external >> > binaries (downloads and Docker images) which make the Apache Airflow >> > Community a bit vulnerable to external dependencies. I would love your >> > comments/opinions on the proposal I made around this. >> > >> > *More explanation/status:* >> > >> > While dependence is fine for officially "released" and "managed" by the >> > owning organizations, I think it is a bit risky to depend on those long >> > term and I think we should aim to bring all those "vulnerable" >> dependencies >> > into community control. >> > >> > I reviewed all our code (or I think all !) looking for such dependencies >> > and prepared an "umbrella" issue where I proposed the approach we can >> take >> > for all such dependencies. >> > >> > I could have missed some - so if you find others feel free to >> comment/add >> > the new ones. >> > All the details are captured here: >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/9401 - I discussed the >> > context/motivation/current status and approach we can take for those >> > dependencies. >> > >> > A lot of those dependencies just need review and maybe some updates to >> > latest versions. And I do not think there is a lot to discuss for those. >> > >> > There is one point, however, that requires more deliberate action and >> some >> > decisions I think. >> > >> > We have some dependencies on Docker images that we are using from >> various >> > sources: >> > 1) officially maintained images >> > 2) images released by organizations that released them for their own >> > purpose, but they are not "officially maintained" by those organizations >> > 3) images released by private individuals >> > >> > While 1) is perfectly OK, I think for 2) and 3) we should bring the >> images >> > to Airflow community management. Here is the list of those images I >> found >> > that need to be moved to Airflow: >> > >> > - aneeshkj/helm-unittest >> > - ashb/apache-rat:0.13-1 >> > - godatadriven/krb5-kdc-server >> > - polinux/stress (?) >> > - osixia/openldap:1.2.0 >> > - astronomerinc/ap-statsd-exporter:0.11.0 >> > - astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer:1.8.1 >> > - astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer-exporter:0.5.0-1 >> > >> > >> > *Proposal*: >> > >> > My proposal is to make a folder in our repository on Github (continue >> with >> > the mono-repo approach we follow) to keep corresponding Dockerfiles and >> > scripts that build and release images from there. Now the only >> > question is >> > where to keep those images. We currently have apache/airflow but I >> > think we >> > should reserve it for airflow images only and we should keep those >> images >> > elsewhere. Unfortunately, we cannot have "sub-images" of any sort in >> > DockerHub. We are already abusing a bit the "apache/airflow" namespace >> as >> > we are keeping both CI and production images there (but that's quite >> > OK as >> > the images are similar). >> > >> > My proposal will be to create an* "apache/airflow-ext"* DockerHub >> > repository and keep the images there. They will also be a little >> > abused because we will have to name them with tags - for example: >> > >> > - apache/airflow-ext:helm-unittest-[version] >> > - apache/airflow-ext:apache-rat-[version] >> > >> > I am also open to other names for the repo and proposals other ways >> > how to >> > handle that. >> > >> > I believe there is no issue with Licences for either of those images >> (Ash, >> > Kaxil, Fokko - some of the images are Astronomer's/GoDataDriven's ones - >> > can you comment on that ?) but I believe licensing on all those >> > images are >> > ok for us to copy with attribution (I will double-check that for other >> > images). >> > >> > WDYT? >> > >> > J. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Jarek Potiuk >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> > >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> > >> > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
