+1 On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:27 AM Yuan Zhuang <yu...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > I have checked: > - The signature (from Zhaofeng Chen) and hashes are correct. > - I'm able to build from source and all tests passed. > > > On 2025/06/20 13:54:12 Zhaofeng Chen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The KEYS file and .asc signature have been updated. As the original > release > > artifacts remain unchanged, this vote can continue without restarting. > > > > Please feel free to proceed with your verification. > > > > Best regards, > > Zhaofeng > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 1:57 PM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Thank you for this change. I don't have other questions and will > continue > > > the verify after your updates. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025, at 13:55, Zhaofeng Chen wrote: > > > > Hi Xuanwo, > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising these excellent points — we really appreciate the > > > > thoughtful feedback. > > > > > > > > - Who will pay for the hardware? > > > > The PMC member who physically maintains the hardware-backed key > > > (e.g., a > > > > YubiKey) covers the cost themselves. > > > > > > > > - Will all PMC members receive this hardware? > > > > No. Our intention isn’t to distribute hardware to every PMC > member, but > > > > rather to offer an optional, secure signing path. Access to the > > > > hardware-backed key is permissioned, and signing operations are > handled > > > > through an offline, controlled process. This setup doesn’t restrict > > > others > > > > from managing releases — it’s just one way to offload key management > for > > > > those who prefer it. > > > > > > > > - Can PMC members who do not have this hardware still sign releases? > > > > Yes, absolutely. This setup is complementary, not a replacement. > PMC > > > > members can still sign releases using their own GPG keys, as per > standard > > > > ASF policy. The shared signing workflow is only intended to reduce > the > > > > operational burden for those who want stronger security without > > > maintaining > > > > their own key infrastructure. > > > > > > > > Ultimately, I hope we can make the release process both easier and > more > > > > secure, and potentially encourage more contributors to serve as > Release > > > > Managers. > > > > However, after another round of reviewing ASF’s release signing > > > > guidelines[1], I realized that our idea shares similarities with > Apache’s > > > > automated signing infrastructure, which is maintained by the Infra > team. > > > In > > > > particular, it supports: > > > > - Centralized signing keys managed securely by Infra > > > > - CI-based artifact generation, reproducibility, and offline > verification > > > > - Strong separation between signing infrastructure and project > > > maintainers > > > > > > > > This might be a promising long-term direction for us. In the future, > we > > > > could explore working with Infra to request a project-specific > signing > > > key. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#automated-release-signing > > > > > > > > To avoid any potential confusion for this release, I will revert to > the > > > > standard model and proceed with signing the artifacts using my > personal > > > GPG > > > > key, which will be added to the KEYS file accordingly. Since the > original > > > > release artifacts remain unchanged, and only the .asc signature file > will > > > > be updated, I plan to reuse this vote thread for continuity. > > > > > > > > Any feedback is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Zhaofeng > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 1:14 PM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thank you Zhaofeng for the explanation. > > > >> > > > >> > We understand that the current key name may be confusing. To make > its > > > >> > shared nature clearer, we plan to introduce a new key entry with > > > identity > > > >> > set to something like "Teaclave Release Signing Key", which makes > it > > > more > > > >> > reasonable for people who are trying to verify the artifacts. > > > >> > > > >> This looks good to me. > > > >> > > > >> > In the new setup, the shared GPG key is hardware-backed (e.g., > > > YubiKey), > > > >> > PIN-protected, with expiration date, and maintained by a small > group > > > of > > > >> > administrators. > > > >> > > > >> This can sometimes be challenging, as it may restrict some PMC > members > > > >> from making releases. I know that's not your intention, but it can > give > > > the > > > >> impression that the project is controlled by a small group of > people. > > > >> > > > >> Here are some questions: > > > >> > > > >> - Who will pay for the hardware? > > > >> - Will all PMC members receive this hardware? > > > >> - Can PMC members who do not have this hardware still sign releases? > > > >> > > > >> However, this isn't a blocker for the release. We can address these > > > issues > > > >> gradually. > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025, at 13:08, Zhaofeng Chen wrote: > > > >> > Hi Xuanwo, > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for the helpful input. > > > >> > > > > >> > - We’ll update future emails to use the official CDN link: > > > >> > https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/teaclave/KEYS . For > > > verification > > > >> > purpose, the file content is identical. > > > >> > > > > >> > Regarding the signing key: > > > >> > We’re moving toward a model where multiple release managers can > > > securely > > > >> > use the same high-assurance signing key. Previously, each release > > > manager > > > >> > generated and managed their own GPG key independently, which led > to > > > >> > inconsistent security practices and made key rotation more > difficult. > > > >> > > > > >> > In the new setup, the shared GPG key is hardware-backed (e.g., > > > YubiKey), > > > >> > PIN-protected, with expiration date, and maintained by a small > group > > > of > > > >> > administrators. Release managers don’t personally own the key but > can > > > >> > request access to perform signing operations in a controlled, > offline > > > >> > process. This approach improves key protection, simplifies key > > > lifecycle > > > >> > management, and ensures better privilege separation. > > > >> > > > > >> > We understand that the current key name may be confusing. To make > its > > > >> > shared nature clearer, we plan to introduce a new key entry with > > > identity > > > >> > set to something like "Teaclave Release Signing Key", which makes > it > > > more > > > >> > reasonable for people who are trying to verify the artifacts. > > > >> > > > > >> > I'd love to hear any feedback the community may have on this > plan. If > > > it > > > >> > sounds reasonable and compliant with Apache's policy, I can > proceed > > > with > > > >> > updating the KEYS file with the new key name and the corresponding > > > >> > signature files. > > > >> > > > > >> > Best, > > > >> > Zhaofeng > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:53 AM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Hi, Zhaofeng > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thank you for working on this release. This is my first time > > > reviewing > > > >> >> releases, so please let me know if there's any context I should > be > > > >> aware of > > > >> >> beforehand. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Here are some questsions I have: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> - It's better to use our CDN for the GPG key download URL: > > > >> >> https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/teaclave/KEYS > > > >> >> - I noticed that the release is signed by a different key, > > > >> >> yu...@apache.org, which does not belong to Zhaofeng. Is it > signed > > > >> >> automatically in CI? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025, at 08:03, Zhaofeng Chen wrote: > > > >> >> > Hi all, > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > I am pleased to be calling this vote for the release of Apache > > > >> Teaclave > > > >> >> > TrustZone SDK (incubating) 0.5.0 (release candidate 1). > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Although this release follows shortly after the approval of the > > > >> v0.4.0 on > > > >> >> > June 3, please note that the earlier release was initiated > back on > > > >> >> February > > > >> >> > 27 and was significantly delayed due to a prolonged voting > process. > > > >> Since > > > >> >> > then, we’ve made improvements to streamline the process and > hope > > > this > > > >> >> > release proceeds more smoothly. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > The release note is available in: > > > >> >> > - > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-teaclave-trustzone-sdk/releases/tag/v0.5.0-rc.1 > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > The release candidate to be voted over is available at: > > > >> >> > - > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/teaclave/trustzone-sdk-0.5.0-rc.1/ > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > The release candidate is signed with a GPG key available at: > > > >> >> > - > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/teaclave/KEYS > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Instructions to verify the release candidate’s signature: > > > >> >> > - > > > >> >> > > > > https://teaclave.apache.org/download/#verify-the-integrity-of-the-files > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Incubator release checklist for reference: > > > >> >> > - > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Incubator+Release+Checklist > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > The release artifacts have passed all GitHub Actions CI > checks. You > > > >> can > > > >> >> > also reproduce the build process manually from source using the > > > >> >> > following > > > >> >> > commands: > > > >> >> > ``` > > > >> >> > $ wget > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/teaclave/trustzone-sdk-0.5.0-rc.1/apache-teaclave-trustzone-sdk-0.5.0-incubating.tar.gz > > > >> >> > $ tar zxvf > apache-teaclave-trustzone-sdk-0.5.0-incubating.tar.gz > > > >> >> > $ cd apache-teaclave-trustzone-sdk-0.5.0-incubating > > > >> >> > $ docker run --rm -it -v$(pwd):/teaclave-trustzone-sdk -w \ > > > >> >> > /teaclave-trustzone-sdk > yuanz0/teaclave-trustzone-sdk:ubuntu-24.04 > > > \ > > > >> >> > bash -c "./setup.sh && (./build_optee_libraries.sh optee) && > > > source \ > > > >> >> > environment && make && (cd ci && ./ci.sh)" > > > >> >> > ``` > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Anyone can > participate > > > >> >> > in testing and voting, not just committers, please feel free > to try > > > >> >> > out the release candidate and provide your votes to this thread > > > >> >> > explicitly. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > [ ] +1 approve > > > >> >> > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > >> >> > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Best, > > > >> >> > Zhaofeng > > > >> >> > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> Xuanwo > > > >> >> > > > >> >> https://xuanwo.io/ > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@teaclave.apache.org > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@teaclave.apache.org > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Xuanwo > > > >> > > > >> https://xuanwo.io/ > > > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@teaclave.apache.org > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@teaclave.apache.org > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > Xuanwo > > > > > > https://xuanwo.io/ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@teaclave.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@teaclave.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@teaclave.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@teaclave.apache.org > >
