linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EAF3556.3000001@garzik.org>
Date:	Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:55:02 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	git@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

On 10/31/2011 06:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@...or.com>  writes:
>
>> On 10/31/2011 03:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>> But if you do the normal "git pull git://git.kernel.org/name/of/repo"
>>> - which is how things happen as a result of a pull request - you won't
>>> get tags at all - you have to ask for them by name or use "--tags" to
>>> get them all.
>>>
>>
>> Didn't realize that... I guess I'm too used to named remotes.
>>
>> If so, just using a tag should be fine, no?
>
> So nobody is worried about this (quoting from my earlier message)?
>
>     On the other hand, the consumers of "Linus kernel" may want to say that
>     they trust your tree and your tags because they can verify them with your
>     GPG signature, but also they can independently verify the lieutenants'
>     trees you pulled from are genuine.
>
> A signed emphemeral tag is usable as means to verify authenticity in a
> hop-by-hop fashion, but that does not leave a permanent trail that can be
> used for auditing.

The main worry is Linus ($human_who_pulls) gets 
cryptographically-verified data at the time he pulls.  Once Linus 
republishes his tree (git push), there will be few, if any, wanting to 
verify Jeff Garzik's signature.

So no, I don't see that as a _driving_ need in the kernel's case.

And IMO the kernel will be a mix of signed and unsigned content for a 
while, possibly forever.


And Linus wrote:
> [ Example gpg-signed small block that the attached patch adds to the
> pull request: ]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Commit be3fa9125e708348c7baf04ebe9507a72a9d1800
> from git.kernel.org/pub/git
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOrsILAAoJEHm+PkMAQRiGxZcH/31e0RrBitXUPKxHJajD58yh
> SIEe/7i6E2RUSFva3KybEuFslcR8p8DYzDQTPLejStvnkO8v0lXu9s9R53tvjLMF
> aaQXLOgrOC2RqvzP4F27O972h32YpLBkwIdWQGAhYcUOdKYDZ9RfgEgtdJwSYuL+
> oJ7TjLrtkcILaFmr9nYZC+0Fh7z+84R8kR53v0iBHJQOFfssuMjUWCoj9aEY12t+
> pywXuVk2FsuYvhniCAcyU6Y1K9aXaf6w5iOY2hx/ysXtUBnv92F7lcathxQkvgjO
> fA7/TXEcummOv5KQFc9vckd5Z1gN2ync5jhfnmlT2uiobE6mNdCbOVlCOpsKQkU=
> =l5PG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


This is my preference for kernel pull requests at the moment.  That has 
one advantage over Junio's "git pull --require-signature" and signed 
commits, notably, the URL is signed.

But in general signed commits would be nice, too.  pull-generated merge 
requests would need to be signed, potentially introducing an additional 
interactive step (GPG passphrase request) into an automated process.

	Jeff


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/