comments inline On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:21 AM Matthias Dellweg <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What i like about this proposal is, that the yet unwritten rule, that one >> signing service is really meant to sign with one specific key would be very >> explicit. >> > I agree > > We could go one step further and provide the key ID as environment to the >> script called (to make that part reusable / packageable). >> > +1 to packaging something reusable, but how do you imagine the key ID on > the data model relate to usages where the script is a gateway to an > external? > I'd say a script that calls gpg on the same machine can use the provided key ID to be reuseable. A script that invokes some arbitrary external service depends heavily on the service at hand. Either that service wants a key ID anyway in order to know which key to sign with, or the script can simply ignore that additional bit of information given. I think, this is about additional convenience (on the admin side). > > Also we could state, that there is no reason to ever change a >> SigningService object, but to create a new one if you need to rekey or >> change the script behind it. >> > The implications of not being able to modify a SigningService is that > after an Administrator makes a change, pulp-API-users managing repositories > that would be pointing to that SigningService would have to > "switch-and-publish". If we can modify a SigningService then > pulp-repo-users with repositories would just need to republish. What do you > think about these outcomes? > I think, this signing service is meant to be used at publication time. A created publication is an immutable set of artifacts that are associated with certain relative paths. If the public key used while publishing should be part of the publication, then it can either be by referencing the SigningService on the Publication (in that case, it must be immutable, too) or the key can be turned into it's own published artifact. Then changing the singing service in any way by the admin is possible, but can lead to surprises of its users. > > >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:03 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> From a goals perspective, we're trying to strengthen the interface >>> between Administrators configuring the signing service and plugin writers >>> using that signing service. One way to make that very explicit is to have >>> the contents of the public key live on the model itself (like we store keys >>> on Remote's as a TextField) for example. >>> >>> Plugin writers using the signing interface could access it directly >>> without having to "sign dummy data". Additionally, you could even search >>> SigningService's by it which would be more usable when figuring out "oh >>> which one of these is the one I need to update". I don't see any downsides >>> to this proposal, but what do you think? What are the benefits of returning >>> the key at runtime from the Admin's script over this approach? >>> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:51 AM Matthias Dellweg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> > In case of the RPM plugin, the content handler needs to be able to >>>> know what the public key file is named without actually executing the >>>> sign() or validate() method. >>>> This opens a new can of worms. But as far as i see it, metadata is >>>> signed when creating the publication. Along with the signature, the signing >>>> script provides the public key as a file. The publication task now turns >>>> the signature into a published artifact, and imho could do the same to the >>>> key. Why does the content handler need to retrieve the key again? It is not >>>> supposed to change. >>>> Even if the content handler needed to decide on the fly, where to >>>> publish the key, then we could reference the artifact containing the key as >>>> a field on the publication and serve that. >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:34 AM Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:07 AM Matthias Dellweg <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As i see it, it is up to the subclass (e.g. AptReleaseSigningService, >>>>>> YumMetadataSigninigService, ...) to provide a stable interface. And the >>>>>> way >>>>>> it is implemented, the script for an AptReleaseSigninigService is >>>>>> required >>>>>> to report the filenames of both created signatures. And that is verified >>>>>> by >>>>>> the service before saving to the database. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In case of the RPM plugin, the content handler needs to be able to >>>>> know what the public key file is named without actually executing the >>>>> sign() or validate() method. I don't see anything in the >>>>> AptReleaseSigninigService[0] that provides that functionality. >>>>> >>>>> The implementation of the AsciiArmoredDetachedSigningService[1] could >>>>> provide a method for retrieving the public key file name and the >>>>> validate() >>>>> method would have to enforce it. Would this be more valuable to implement >>>>> at the base class (SigningService) level[2]? >>>>> >>>>> [0] >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_deb/blob/master/pulp_deb/app/models/signing_service.py#L12 >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/3.3/pulpcore/app/models/content.py#L447 >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/3.3/pulpcore/app/models/content.py#L377 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:51 PM Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 3:39 AM Quirin Pamp <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you explain the reasoning for a 'public.key' file? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The public.key file is the file that a yum/dnf client can use to >>>>>>> verify that the metadata in an RPM repository was signed by the signing >>>>>>> service associated with the repository. The name of the file can be >>>>>>> anything - the path to it needs to be specified in the repository >>>>>>> config on >>>>>>> the client. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the case of the AptReleaseSigningService we built for pulp_deb >>>>>>>> we saw zero need for this file and consequently did not add it in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (It would not be hard to add it just to satisfy the interface, it >>>>>>>> just would not serve any useful purpose.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is definitely up to each plugin if it wants to provide the public >>>>>>> key as part of the publication. It is currently impossible for the >>>>>>> plugin >>>>>>> to know exactly what files are produced by the signing service. This is >>>>>>> where I would like to see an improvement in the API. Pupcore should >>>>>>> provide >>>>>>> a guarantee to plugin writers that a signing service configured by an >>>>>>> administrator is functioning in a predictable way. One possible way to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> that is with an interface that lets a plugin writer inspect a signing >>>>>>> service without executing it. Though I am looking for other ideas in >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> area. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since we are on the topic of signing services, a colleague has had >>>>>>>> a PR relating to them just sitting their waiting for a review for >>>>>>>> quite a >>>>>>>> while now ;-): >>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/659 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would be great if you (or somebody else) could have a look at >>>>>>>> it. I believe it is mostly ready, but probably needs the eyes of an >>>>>>>> experienced pulp core developer to look over it and suggest style >>>>>>>> consistency changes and where and whether to add documentation. ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll take a look at this PR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quirin >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> on behalf of Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* 04 May 2020 22:50:54 >>>>>>>> *To:* Pulp-dev <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Pulp-dev] signing service interface >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Plugin API of Signing Services in Pulp 3 is too vague. I came >>>>>>>> to this conclusion while working with @lieter on an RPM plugin feature >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> allows users to download a repo config file from a distribution[0]. As >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> result, we decided to document that the signing service needs to >>>>>>>> produce a >>>>>>>> public key file named 'public.key'[1]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should revisit the design of the signing service API to ensure >>>>>>>> that we enforce this naming convention. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5356 >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1687/files#diff-c91893c1f4e7afe73e414d1a76162463R30 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
