Hey Ash, Greg, Daniel, So I understand there is no problem with licenses for those images and we can get/use the sources for those?
I would love to add the scripts/Dockerfiles to the sources - to be able to rebuild the images. I have some of those already and would like to make a PR, but It would be great if we can get the Dockerfile sources. I also want to ask a few questions about versions of the base images (some of the base images seem to be quite old and there are newer releases so I wanted to check if there is anything to prevent upgrading them). J On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:58 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:27 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > - 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? >> > > I think we should. I believe we should make it a part of regular release > and vote together on "airflow + prod image + helm + dependent images". > Then we might release each of those separately if needed - with > separate voting/process (possibly we can bundle together several different > things to release). Hence CalVer might make more sense even if we release > them together with 1.10.x or 2.Y (especially that those deps are pretty > much independent from the airflow version used). I think for Airflow + Prod > image, it makes perfect sense to keep 1.10.* 2.0.* - but for Helm and > dependent images - CalVer seems like a better idea. > > > 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 ) >> > > Agree. BTW. I wondered if anyone notices the date ;). > > (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 :) >> > > True. But I think we have some precedent in our CI/Prod images. We have it > currently automated so that they self-maintain ad self-upgrade: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/CI.rst. The current CI > automation is done in the way that we are catching up fairly quickly with > the latest python patches - almost without noticing (well there is a few > hours period where the builds on CI get slower and people need to update > their Breeze images). But other than that it happens automatically and > without anyone doing any active work there. > > I can do a very similar approach for all the images (both dev and runtime) > and add a notification component to notify if any of the upstreaming deps > changes. So it will be - from our side - mostly deciding if we should > release it out-of-the-bands or wait for "regular" release. > > J. > > >> 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/> >> > >> > > > -- > > 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/>
