Comments below.
On 17.12.2021 07:46, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:01 AM Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
Has the platform decided to bypass Orbit to produce IUs directly from
some other sources? I'm not sure how the multiple versions of
such IUs
on the release train will be (or even can be) coordinated across
projects if the general new approach is that each project produces
such
things purely for its own purpose from whatever sources it deems fit.
Also, the artifacts are not signed, which is the reason that I
noticed:
https://download.eclipse.org/oomph/archive/reports/download.eclipse.org/eclipse/updates/4.23-I-builds/index.html
Note that once an unsigned version of some specific artifact ID is
out
there is the wild (in someone's bundle pool), it's extremely hard to
stamp it out unless a new version with a new artifact ID is
created to
supersede it.
Perhaps the platform has decided that PGP signatures are now
deemed to
be fully secure and fully feature complete such that signatures are
obsolete? This is not the expectation I have based Planning Council
discussions.
Platform is not contributing these to release train so no issue for
release train for now!
That appears to be the case given these particular IUs are not on the
current train.
The feature org.eclipse.test relies on PGP on purpose as this is our
proof and example how PGP works and is on par with jarsigner as far as
signing requirements for third party dependencies are considered
https://github.com/eclipse-cbi/best-practices/blob/main/software-supply-chain/osssc-best-practices.md#securing-third-party-artifacts
.
A proof of concept is arguably useful.
Here is what happens when the installer tries to install
org.mockito.mockito-core into a Platform SDK IDE:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CertificateChecker.buildPGPTrustore(CertificateChecker.java:311)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CertificateChecker$1.get(CertificateChecker.java:63)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CertificateChecker$1.get(CertificateChecker.java:1)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CertificateChecker.checkCertificates(CertificateChecker.java:126)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CertificateChecker.start(CertificateChecker.java:83)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CheckTrust.completePhase(CheckTrust.java:63)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.Phase.postPerform(Phase.java:254)
at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.Phase.perform(Phase.java:105)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.PhaseSet.perform(PhaseSet.java:50)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.Engine.perform(Engine.java:80)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.Engine.perform(Engine.java:48)
at
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2.director.PlanExecutionHelper.executePlan(PlanExecutionHelper.java:46)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.p2.internal.core.ProfileTransactionImpl$3.commit(ProfileTransactionImpl.java:549)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.p2.internal.core.ProfileTransactionImpl.commit(ProfileTransactionImpl.java:345)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.p2.impl.P2TaskImpl.perform(P2TaskImpl.java:905)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.internal.core.SetupTaskPerformer.doPerformNeededSetupTasks(SetupTaskPerformer.java:3851)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.internal.core.SetupTaskPerformer.performNeededSetupTasks(SetupTaskPerformer.java:3779)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.internal.core.SetupTaskPerformer.performTriggeredSetupTasks(SetupTaskPerformer.java:3760)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.internal.core.SetupTaskPerformer.perform(SetupTaskPerformer.java:3638)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.ui.wizards.ProgressPage$9.run(ProgressPage.java:600)
at
org.eclipse.oomph.setup.ui.wizards.ProgressPage$11$1.run(ProgressPage.java:727)
at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:63)
Why? Because
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.CheckTrust.completePhase(IProgressMonitor,
IProfile, Map<String, Object>) knows the profile, but the certificate
checker doesn't know to check that profile but rather checks the self
profile. I imagine the p2 director will have such problems too, or
perhaps it will not fail but also might not actually check the correct
profile...
Updating mockito and friends to newer versions so they work with
latest Java versions is a task we couldn't have completed if we had
gone through Orbit as this literally doubles the work involved.
I sympathize fully with the endless work of getting things done
primarily for the benefit of others. I wonder though if n projects have
to duplicate the effort n times if that will be n times the work. Also,
might we end up with n versions of each such bundle? That's not a
problem for the platform, but it's problem for SimRel and for the
community at large. The Platform PMC is of course not obligated to care.
This was a topic for next Planning Council meeting but as it's already
bringed here: Yes, Eclipse PMC has decided that we are going with PGP
signatures and it's fullfilling the given requirements
(https://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse/PMC#Meeting_Minutes). There is just
not enough manpower to keep releng uptodate and fix bugs at the same
time. So from now on things like Jetty updates and other third party
updates will go with PGP signing only from Eclipse TLP. It's not a
decision taken lightly - it's total exhaustion amongst people doing
that work and lack of interest from others to heavily engage in either
sharing the burden of the releng process or at least look into the new
approach and point issues in it.
The community with which I'm familiar tended to build consensus around
decisions. In any case, I can relate to being tired. It has been
impossible to find time to look into the evolving new approach. (The
log4j thing was of course endless fun too.)
So the possible paths I see are:
* Simrel accepts PGP signatures
* Simrel stays with old Platform that doesn't contain third party PGP
signed dependencies
* Someone steps up to do all the needed work in the old way
* Someone points how a real exploit with PGP signing but can't happen
with jarsigning
The path the Platform PMC has chosen to take is effectively the first
one. Dismissing the third option might have been done only after
communicating with the community before hand...
The topic is something I have planned to bring to the next Planning
Council meeting in January. Eclipse Platform doesn't plan to push any
third party updates for content in Simrel for limited period to give
some time for Planning Council to discuss and decide. I seriously
wanted to delay this discussion after Christmas to not interrupt the
discussions during vacations, which already started or start today for
quite a few people including me.
It doesn't appear there is really much of discussion to be had though...
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
On behalf of Eclipse PMC
--
Aleksandar Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list,
visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
