illumos is already using ssh as the primary hg mechanism, fyi.  Seems to work 
far better than http.

  -- Garrett D'Amore

On May 25, 2011, at 3:45 PM, "Bayard Bell" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> One other keepalive on this thread is that I'd really like for us to move to 
> using ssh as the primary means for publishing source, at least for 
> clone/pull. HTTP is fine for browsing/eyeballing, but anyone who means to 
> build off the source should be able to do server authentication as an 
> integrity measure, which means either ssh or https. This protects against 
> things like name service-based MITM, which is quite easy to do (additional 
> note: nice if we got DNSSEC going for openindiana.org). 
> 
> Following the line of thinking even as it becomes a distinct question from 
> source structure and integrity: as we're trying to improve our security 
> posture in rolling out stable, I'd at least suggesting releasing stable with 
> signed packages, so that binary distribution is also protected, albeit by 
> cryptographic protection of the packaging envelope rather than transport 
> integrity. I don't have experience of the latter, but a) I have some 
> background with cryptography and willing to learn new applications and 2) 
> suspect that Triskelios and others from Illumos will have some experience of 
> it from within Sun/Oracle.
> 
> We can discuss on #oi-dev and/or at the next meeting. I reckon the EC folks 
> have their hands full at the moment, so I thought it better to post notes 
> here as I'm thinking these things through rather than pumping them onto IRC.
> 
> On 24 May 2011, at 17:00, Bayard Bell wrote:
> 
>> I'm bumping this, as part of the problem that needs sorting is where to 
>> manage security patches that need doing around 151. I had an agenda item for 
>> last week's meeting to discuss this.
>> 
>> Hopefully we'll be able to discuss this at today's meeting (which *is* 
>> happening? ;->).
>> 
>> On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, Bayard Bell wrote:
>> 
>>> Just a couple of notes as I've been been a bit frustrated with the way that 
>>> merge queues are used in OI. I've got nothing against merge queues, it just 
>>> seems that the source should be offered with merges already done. OI source 
>>> should be accessible in the repos for cloning or browsing without requiring 
>>> someone to merge. That's not to say that the patches shouldn't also be just 
>>> as accessible, as well as the upstream source. It doesn't seem auspicious 
>>> to me that the top of the OI builds docs contain a pointer to a page on 
>>> using MQ. What I'd prefer to see is a source namespace that looks like:
>>> 
>>> hg.openindiana.org\
>>>    upstream\
>>>        illumos-gate\
>>>            onnv_147\
>>>            [etc.]
>>>        userland-gate\
>>>            build-165\
>>>            [etc.]
>>>        [etc.]
>>>    oi\
>>>        illumos-gate\
>>>            oi_147\
>>>            [etc.]
>>>        userland-gate\
>>>            oi_147\
>>>            [etc.]
>>>    mq\
>>>        illumos-gate\
>>>            onnv_147-oi_147\
>>>            [etc.]
>>>        userland-gate\
>>>            build-165-oi_147\
>>>            [etc.]
>>> 
>>> If people want to see what's in OI or pull OI source, there it is. OI 
>>> releases under active development may be a separate case that require 
>>> people to pull merge queues. I've also been thinking about how to maintain 
>>> patches for CVE audits/incident response going forward. What I'd suggest, 
>>> building on the previous suggestion is just to have a second series of 
>>> merge queue that goes on top of an OI release and is regularly merged into 
>>> the release, so that it can remain private. Thus:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    sec_mq\
>>>        illumos-gate\
>>>            oi_147\
>>>            [etc]
>>>        userland-gate\
>>>            oi_146
>>>            [etc.]
>>> 
>>> I'll admit some of this is just plain branding: OI, as source should be 
>>> able to be somewhat self-referential. If people want to understand how it 
>>> works back upstream, fine, but the current system comes across to me as a 
>>> bit baroque. I'm sure I don't entirely appreciate the reasoning of the 
>>> current system, but hopefully your responses will get me there.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bayard
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> oi-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Reply via email to