> - apache/airflow:statstd-exporter-2020.6.31 > - apache/airflow:pgbouncer-2020.6.31 > - apache/airflow:pgbouncer-exporter-2020.6.31
Do we count these as "releases" (i.e. do the PMC need to vote on them) or not? For these I think including the upstream version is useful too (either as well, or instead) -- that way people can look at the right version of the upstream docs when looking at what configuration options there are. so `apache/airflow:pgbouncer-1.8.1-1` or `apache/airflow:pgbouncer-1.8.1-2020.6.31` (nice date btw :D ) (FYI For pgbouncer-exporter there are three such projects on github, Juraj's was picked somewhat randomly) > I think now it's the matter of just following up with the > releases of pgbouncer and libressl and libressl-dev That's still a fairly big "just". And there ssl libraries aren't the only sources of security patches needed. Also the act of updating is the easy part -- its the notification to know when updates are needed, and ensuring that they happen in a timely manner that is the hard part :) On Jun 25 2020, at 11:05 am, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I'd feel more comfortable if we have it all under "community" > umbrella. > > - For dev images - I think we have a good idea from couchdb. I will make > a POC of that and PR shortly. I already created airflowdev account on > Dockerhub and make it available to PMCs of Airlfow and connect it to our > repo to automate Dev dependencies. > - For the runtime (astronomer) images I took a deeper look and I think > it makes perfect sense to add them and release by Airflow Community > as well: > > Here is what is in those images: > > - astronomerinc/ap-statsd-exporter > > <https://hub.docker.com/layers/astronomerinc/ap-statsd-exporter/latest/images/sha256-69538dc71521489733bb21823505a75a02a4c54d1d07eaa2be9fa7eb58763b7f?context=explore> > - this image is just based on the official Prometheus Statsd > exported with > added file "/etc/statsd-exporter/mappings.yml". So the maintenance is > mainly about keeping the mapping and possibly upgrade to lates released > prometheus-statsd occasionally. The first one sounds like a good > idea for > community work, the second we can easily automate - same way as we > do for > production images. Seems that this one is updated once every few > months, so > we can easily do that. astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer:latest > - astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer > > <https://hub.docker.com/layers/astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer/latest/images/sha256-9820007e1e62eb988cb603929b1eaf0989052cd01b73a3004274b21d143f9654?context=explore> > - this is just packaging pgbouncer into an image - this one seems to be > updated more frequently in the past but I think now it's the matter > of just > following up with the releases of pgbouncer and libressl and lbressl-dev > > > <https://hub.docker.com/layers/astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer-exporter/latest/images/sha256-6e9d4f2d66dafecfd2f29239a1957edb2c953b8299e487ec8b04a96206d2da4e?context=explore> > - astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer-exporter > > <https://hub.docker.com/layers/astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer-exporter/latest/images/sha256-6e9d4f2d66dafecfd2f29239a1957edb2c953b8299e487ec8b04a96206d2da4e?context=explore> > - this is pgbouncer exporter based on Juraj Bubniak's PGBouncer Prometheus > exporter with libressl and libressl-dev library upgraded. Also usually > updated every few months. Here I think it would also make sense to bring > the source code in to the community for Juraj's image as well. > > I also think it would make sense (unlike the dev dependencies) to publish > all "runtime" devs under the "apache/airflow" repository. That would > be a > bit awkward, but I think it's the least "effort" we need to maintain and > make sure it is officially "blessed" during the release. > > So the proposal I have (if we use calver versioning similar to backport > packages): > > - apache/airflow:statstd-exporter-2020.6.31 > - apache/airflow:pgbouncer-2020.6.31 > - apache/airflow:pgbouncer-exporter-2020.6.31 > > I am happy to bring it all to our repo and setup automation. > > J. > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:19 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Wow Kamil that's an awesome and mature processs for a company to take -- >> I wish more companies treated open source deps that way. >> >> As I mentioned in the original Helm PR (but just in a comment left to a >> review), I left a few of the "support" Docker images as astronomerinc >> ones as the upstream Docker images are "unmaintained" (that isn't to say >> the projects are, just that the images aren't re-published in a timely >> fashion to update openssl etc.) >> >> I am happy to replace the astronomerinc support images with others if we >> want to. I am also happy to clarify/make explicit the license situation >> that those images are distributed under (Apache 2) if we want to stick >> with them and let us (Astronomer) carry the burden of patching and >> updating them -- it is after all part of what people pay us for so we'll >> be doing it anyway. >> >> > Besides, we should provide the possibility to replace "Object code" with >> > other objects i.e., use of an image from a private third-party registry. >> >> The images to use come from the helm values, so are easily changable at >> helm install/upgrade time: >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/ec0025f35be212b248c284efa04acf2d96845681/chart/values.yaml#L68-L92 >> >> -ash >> >> On Jun 24 2020, at 9:07 am, Kamil Breguła <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > These files have no information to determine the license. In my opinion, >> > these images ("Derivative Works") should be treated as Astronomer's or >> > other users' copyrighted files. Please note that Astronomer may >> distribute >> > the images under a different license, but they need to acknowledge the >> use >> > of the Foundation or other licensed software. To do otherwise would be >> > stealing. >> > >> > DockerHub is not an Open Source software registry, and we cannot assume >> > that every image there is available under a license that allows >> free use. >> > >> > **What does this mean for the project?** >> > >> > This is incompatible with the Apache license because each runtime >> > dependencies must also be based on the Apache-compatible license. These >> > images are required to run the Helm Chart, so are its dependencies >> > Dependencies that are not compatible with the Apache license are a >> problem >> > for our users and prevent the use of this project. >> > >> > **How do we deal with this topic in my organization?** >> > >> > We take the topic of copyright very seriously in my organization. >> One of >> > the steps we take before publishing a derivative work based on an >> > Open-Source license is to audit the source code to see if each part is >> > under a license that allows us to use it. If we build images or artifacts >> > automatically, we take steps that prevent the accidental publication >> > of an >> > artifact that could contain works that have an incorrect license. >> > >> > We do this by building the audited internal registry: >> > - In the case of Airflow, this is a copy of the source code and the >> > necessary PIP libraries stored in the blockchain-based registry >> > (append-only registry). Any change in such a registry undergoes a review >> > process and must be approved. It is not possible to revert an approved >> > change without leaving a trace. >> > - In the case of Docker images, this means that each image is built >> > automatically, and no one publishes the images to images register >> manually >> > (docker push). No step can download files from a registry that is not >> > auditable. >> > >> > Such steps allow you to recreate the software development process, >> > e.g. in >> > the case of a court case. >> > >> > In our case, it won't be easy to introduce all similar requirements, >> > but we >> > can try to be compatible with them so that organizations that have the >> same >> > requirements can meet them. >> > >> > **What should we do?** >> > >> > In my opinion, this is similar to using libraries in our application. >> > We do >> > not perform a publisher assessment for every library we use. We only >> verify >> > license compliance. >> > >> > On the other hand, it looks different because it is "Object Code", not >> > "Source Code". We do not use source code directly, but we use an object >> > prepared by a third party - "Derivative Works". >> > >> > In my opinion, relying on any Docker image ("Object Code") is OK if they >> > meet the following requirements: >> > - The Source Code required to create the object should be publicly >> > available and should be compatible with the Apache license. >> > - We should have s access to Compilation Information. The Compilation >> > Information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning >> of the >> > source code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because >> > modification has been made. >> > >> > Besides, we should provide the possibility to replace "Object code" with >> > other objects i.e., use of an image from a private third-party registry. >> > >> > Thank Jarek for paying attention to this issue. I didn't think >> about it >> > before, but now I know I couldn't use the Helm Chart in its current >> > form in >> > any of my work. I am afraid that many members of our community >> would face >> > similar problems if they tried to use it in a production environment. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Licensing wise there is no issue from me: The astronomerinc images are >> >> just re-packaging of the upstream images to apply security fixes >> so are >> >> licensed under whatever the original image is (MIT or Apache2 usually, >> >> else we wouldn't have put them in the helm chart PR) >> >> >> >> For background, the reason that we at Astronomer created >> >> ap-pgbouncer-exporter in the first place is that the upstream package >> >> does not patch/rebuild to address security vulnerabilities. By taking >> >> this in to airflow-ext it means we as a project become responsible for >> >> monitoring and testing that. (And don't be fooled in to thinking the >> >> free scanners can detect all vulns here, we've found them to be >> very of >> >> variable, and questionable accuracy.) >> >> >> >> That is a non-trivial amount of work for an open source project. >> >> >> >> Has this ever caused us any problems outside of Pip/python dependencies? >> >> (I'm not aware of any.) For runtime this maybe makes sense (again, I'm >> >> not yet convinced), but for test-only/dev-only deps this seems >> like a >> >> lot of work that we could better spend on working on Airflow. If >> we pin >> >> versions of docker image used then the only real risk is a left-pad >> >> scenario of "I'm deleting all my images" which is a minor risk. >> >> >> >> Do any other project do anything like this? I haven't seen it before. >> >> >> >> I'd vote for doing nothing and addressing this in specific cases >> when it >> >> becomes a problem. Because I do not see using thidy party docker images >> >> as a risk. I see it as a time saving measure. >> >> >> >> -ash >> >> >> >> On Jun 22 2020, at 1:42 pm, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hello everyone, >> >> > >> >> > TL;DR; I noticed that we are accumulating some dependencies to >> external >> >> > binaries (downloads and Docker images) which make the Apache Airflow >> >> > Community a bit vulnerable to external dependencies. I would love >> your >> >> > comments/opinions on the proposal I made around this. >> >> > >> >> > *More explanation/status:* >> >> > >> >> > While dependence is fine for officially "released" and "managed" by >> the >> >> > owning organizations, I think it is a bit risky to depend on those >> long >> >> > term and I think we should aim to bring all those "vulnerable" >> >> dependencies >> >> > into community control. >> >> > >> >> > I reviewed all our code (or I think all !) looking for such >> dependencies >> >> > and prepared an "umbrella" issue where I proposed the approach >> we can >> >> take >> >> > for all such dependencies. >> >> > >> >> > I could have missed some - so if you find others feel free to >> comment/add >> >> > the new ones. >> >> > All the details are captured here: >> >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/9401 - I discussed the >> >> > context/motivation/current status and approach we can take for those >> >> > dependencies. >> >> > >> >> > A lot of those dependencies just need review and maybe some >> updates to >> >> > latest versions. And I do not think there is a lot to discuss for >> those. >> >> > >> >> > There is one point, however, that requires more deliberate >> action and >> >> some >> >> > decisions I think. >> >> > >> >> > We have some dependencies on Docker images that we are using from >> various >> >> > sources: >> >> > 1) officially maintained images >> >> > 2) images released by organizations that released them for their own >> >> > purpose, but they are not "officially maintained" by those >> organizations >> >> > 3) images released by private individuals >> >> > >> >> > While 1) is perfectly OK, I think for 2) and 3) we should bring the >> >> images >> >> > to Airflow community management. Here is the list of those >> images I >> found >> >> > that need to be moved to Airflow: >> >> > >> >> > - aneeshkj/helm-unittest >> >> > - ashb/apache-rat:0.13-1 >> >> > - godatadriven/krb5-kdc-server >> >> > - polinux/stress (?) >> >> > - osixia/openldap:1.2.0 >> >> > - astronomerinc/ap-statsd-exporter:0.11.0 >> >> > - astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer:1.8.1 >> >> > - astronomerinc/ap-pgbouncer-exporter:0.5.0-1 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > *Proposal*: >> >> > >> >> > My proposal is to make a folder in our repository on Github (continue >> >> with >> >> > the mono-repo approach we follow) to keep corresponding Dockerfiles >> and >> >> > scripts that build and release images from there. Now the only >> >> > question is >> >> > where to keep those images. We currently have apache/airflow but I >> >> > think we >> >> > should reserve it for airflow images only and we should keep those >> images >> >> > elsewhere. Unfortunately, we cannot have "sub-images" of any >> sort in >> >> > DockerHub. We are already abusing a bit the "apache/airflow" >> >> namespace as >> >> > we are keeping both CI and production images there (but that's quite >> >> > OK as >> >> > the images are similar). >> >> > >> >> > My proposal will be to create an* "apache/airflow-ext"* DockerHub >> >> > repository and keep the images there. They will also be a little >> >> > abused because we will have to name them with tags - for example: >> >> > >> >> > - apache/airflow-ext:helm-unittest-[version] >> >> > - apache/airflow-ext:apache-rat-[version] >> >> > >> >> > I am also open to other names for the repo and proposals other ways >> >> > how to >> >> > handle that. >> >> > >> >> > I believe there is no issue with Licences for either of those images >> >> (Ash, >> >> > Kaxil, Fokko - some of the images are Astronomer's/GoDataDriven's >> >> ones - >> >> > can you comment on that ?) but I believe licensing on all those >> >> > images are >> >> > ok for us to copy with attribution (I will double-check that for other >> >> > images). >> >> > >> >> > WDYT? >> >> > >> >> > J. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > >> >> > Jarek Potiuk >> >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> > >> >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> >> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
