On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:51 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > >> The git tags are still signed by Linus. Does that cover your concerns? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not really, no. I think that multiplying the intermediaries between > > > > > > kernel.org > > > > > > and the Fedora repos by adding gitlab.com in the middle might not be the > > > > > > best of ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Fedora security team is fine with it, I'm fine with it, and even if > > > > > > I > > > > > > understand the practical concerns (pagure not being up to par to deal with > > > > > > repos that size, and without a mail gateway support), I find it slightly > > > > > > concerning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this boils down to how much do you trust the kernel maintainers. > > > > > Keep in mind that the existing model requires the kernel maintainers > > > > > to manually pull down a tree and extract the tarball and then upload. > > > > > You can probably trust them to not do anything malicious but mistakes > > > > > can happen (source: I screwed up many times). It's good to be concerned > > > > > about provenance as a threat model but I consider maintainers screwing > > > > > up manual tasks to be a bigger threat model to Fedora kernel security > > > > > so anything that moves towards automation is a benefit in my eyes. > > > > > > > > For me, it's about how much we trust gitlab.com _in addition_ to trusting > > > > kernel.org and fedoraproject.org. I wouldn't be concerned at all if > > > > the new "in-between" tree was at either of those 2 locations. > > > > > > For what it's worth, while I agree, I doubt the kernel maintainers > > > will care about that. They clearly haven't cared given that the CKI > > > project does not run on what most in the project generally considers > > > "trusted infrastructure". > > > > Fedora's "trusted infrastructure" can't scale to what CKI is doing. > > One could argue about what trusted infrastructure means in general, > > because in my opinion there is no such thing, but it would be entirely > > irresponsible to overwhelm already limited capacity with something > > that is done at the scale CKI runs. Figuring out how to get > > comfortable with using cloud resources for workloads where that make > > sense is critical to our long term success. > > And git repos should be verifiable to the upstream so I believe this > should be no worse than any other git ecosystem. > > > (FWIW, I'm trying really hard not to read your comment as a slam on > > the kernel team here. I also find it an interesting example of > > cognitive dissonance that CKI running in AWS somehow triggers this > > comment, when all of Fedora is dependent on the mirror network to > > serve the actual binaries to users and *that* is far more risky than > > doing build testing in the cloud that doesn't even impact end-users.) > > Package/repo signing mitigates that, but that can also be done in the > git side of things too. Provenance isn't what I was phrasing as risky. We depend on the mirror network to scale, which is entirely outside of our control and if they decide it's no longer worth distributing Fedora binaries we'd be screwed. It's the exact concern Neal has :) josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
