[CentOS-devel] repo_gpgcheck for centos repos?

Leon Fauster

leonfauster at googlemail.com
Wed Sep 9 21:36:25 UTC 2020


Top posting to answer all of you.

It now accumulated a lot of reasons to not enabling it. Corner cases, 
race conditions, and practical ones in a wider scope. Very interesting.

Thanks for the insights.
Leon



Am 09.09.20 um 17:00 schrieb Ken Dreyer:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 7:56 PM Brian Stinson <brian at bstinson.com> wrote:
>> There's also the fact that we make a reasonable effort to keep the repodata
>> signatures up to date, but every signature we make is done by hand. We put
>> our focus on delivering the bits, and delays on a repodata signature or two
>> have been known to happen (I think I'm personally on top of the leaderboard
>> for pushing repos before signatures by mistake, so apologies here inline for
>> that).
> 
> Yeah, when we use this feature for publishing on download.ceph.com,
> we've found two problems:
> 
>> There's also the fact that we make a reasonable effort to keep the repodata
>> signatures up to date, but every signature we make is done by hand. We put
>> our focus on delivering the bits, and delays on a repodata signature or two
>> have been known to happen (I think I'm personally on top of the leaderboard
>> for pushing repos before signatures by mistake, so apologies here inline for
>> that).
> 
> Yeah, when we use this feature for download.ceph.com, we've found two problems:
> 
> 1) In a perfect world, we would always publish the correct repomd.xml and
>     corresponding .asc file at the exact same time. In reality, this is
>     difficult to perfectly accomplish this 100% of the time. The goal of
>     "keeping the GPG material and signing process secure" is at odds with
>     "overall ease of use".
> 
> 2) When it comes to volunteer-operated mirrors, all bets are off regarding
>     consistent updates. Mirrors update files at different times. If a CentOS
>     mirror syncs an updated repomd.xml but not the corresponding .asc file,
>     users hit problems.
> 
> As far as ease-of-use goes, Fedora and Red Hat use the Robosignatory
> project to make signing a bit more repeatable and automated, however
> this issue for signing repomd.xml has been open for a long time:
> https://pagure.io/robosignatory/issue/14
> 
> As far as the overall feature goes as implemented in DNF and Yum,
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/133 has some interesting reading on
> this subject. Quoting from Colin Walters' comment there:
> 
>> having both repomd.xml and repomd.xml.asc means two files, which introduces
>> another race. Debian went through the same issue and recently changed to
>> doing signatures inline:
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~cjwatson/blog/no-more-hash-sum-mismatch-errors.html
> 
> Colin's talking about the fact that modern versions of Apt load an
> "InRelease" file that contains both the metadata and the inline GPG
> signature, reducing the room for errors.
> 
> I'd rather see some kind of inline signature support in DNF (and
> MirrorManager) than see a lot of "howto" blogs talking about ignoring
> CentOS GPG errors because the current implementation is racy and
> confusing.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
> 



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list