On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:42 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:02 AM Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/12/20 10:57 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > <snip>
> > > >> 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.
(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.)
I am not slamming the kernel maintainers. They're doing excellent
work, and many of the efforts as part of the CKI project are to be
lauded. I am also not saying cloud resources in themselves are a
problem, but it's not like you're running on a git server hosted in
Fedora's AWS/Azure/GCP account.
My principal concern has always been that projects under the Fedora
banner (or something like it) should be under infrastructure that the
Fedora Project controls.
Honestly, I don't care if it's RHOSP, Fedora's AWS/Azure/GCP, or a
server in a Red Hat office or datacenter. What I care about is that
when push comes to shove, we're not screwed by an external force in an
unexpected fashion in a way where we have no recovery plan.
Personally, I think it's cool to see that the Red Hat kernel might
eventually be derived from the Fedora kernel as a consequence of this
effort!
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!