[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#42048] [PATCH 6/6] services: provenance: Save channel introductions
[bug#42048] [PATCH 6/6] services: provenance: Save channel introductions.
Wed, 01 Jul 2020 10:51:14 +0200
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 22:28, Ludovic Courtès <email@example.com> wrote:
>> One thing that I worry about is authentication of channels that are
>> added as dependencies of user-selected channels. Let’s say my channel
>> “guix-bimsb” depends on “guix-past”. How will users of “guix-bimsb”
>> authenticate the commits of “guix-past” when they don’t know about
>> “guix-past” (they only care about “guix-bimsb”), and don’t explicitly
>> add introduction information to their channels file?
>> Is there something that the authors of “guix-bimsb” can do to not only
>> indicate the dependency on “guix-past”, but also to attach introduction
>> information? Will the format of the “.guix-channel” need to be
> That’s a very good question and I had completely overlooked it.
Héhé, yet I had the same question one month ago. :-)
> The question about recursive still applies. ;-)
> Currently, if the local channel file points to a channel A which
> contains the file '.guix-channel' which points to another channel B,
> then when one runs "guix pull" well the channel A will be pulled and
> then the channel B, even if this channel B is not explicit in the
> initial local channel. (Even, there is bug about recursive implicit
> pulls, see http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/41069; well another
>What happens for such situation?
Nothing special, I guess: each channel would be authenticated (or not,if
it’s an unsigned channel). I think it’s completely orthogonal.
> With this patch set, someone pulling guix-bimsb would just end up
> pulling guix-past unauthenticated; there’s not even a warning.
> (There’s currently a warning in (guix channels), but only when pulling
> an unauthenticated 'guix channel. It’s perhaps too early to have that
> warning enabled for all channels. WDYT?)
Enable the warning appears to me a good idea because this dependency is
like "doing something I am not necessary aware in my back".
For example, the first time I pulled the channel "guix-bimsb-non-free" which
depends on "guix-bimsb", it took me some time to understand why
"guix-bimsb" was pulled twice and once with a name I do not have in my
local channels.scm file. Anyway.
> So yes, I suppose we would need to extend the ‘.guix-channel’ format for
> dependencies. Luckily it should be quite simply because that format is
> extensible; older Guix versions would ignore the ‘introduction’ field.
> It would look something like this:
> (version 0)
> (name some-collection)
> (url "https://example.org/first-collection.git")
> (introduction (channel-introduction
> (version 0)
> (commit "…")
> (signer "…"))))
> (name some-other-collection)
> (url "https://example.org/second-collection.git")
> (branch "testing")))) ;not an authenticated channel
> It does mean that a channel can indirectly trick you into turning off
> authentication for a dependent channel. But I think that’s within the
> expectations for channels: when you choose a channel, you trust it
> enough to run its code.
Sound good to me.
When I choose a channel, I trust the people enough to run their code.
But I do not trust the URL which serves it. I mean, it is the point of
all this new authentication mechanism, isn't it?
However, I agree. Channel should stay easy to fork and add something
(then maybe send a pull-request) without going in all the GPG signature
dance and/or running the options --allow-downgrades or
--disable-authentication (I do not remember the exact name).
- [bug#42048] [PATCH 6/6] services: provenance: Save channel introductions.,