Thread (10 messages) 10 messages, 6 authors, 2011-11-01

Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

From: Jeff Garzik <hidden>
Date: 2011-10-31 23:55:11
Also in: git, lkml

On 10/31/2011 06:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin"[off-list ref]  writes:
quoted
On 10/31/2011 03:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted
But if you do the normal "git pull git://git.kernel.org/name/of/repo"
- which is how things happen as a result of a pull request - you won't
get tags at all - you have to ask for them by name or use "--tags" to
get them all.
Didn't realize that... I guess I'm too used to named remotes.

If so, just using a tag should be fine, no?
So nobody is worried about this (quoting from my earlier message)?

    On the other hand, the consumers of "Linus kernel" may want to say that
    they trust your tree and your tags because they can verify them with your
    GPG signature, but also they can independently verify the lieutenants'
    trees you pulled from are genuine.

A signed emphemeral tag is usable as means to verify authenticity in a
hop-by-hop fashion, but that does not leave a permanent trail that can be
used for auditing.
The main worry is Linus ($human_who_pulls) gets 
cryptographically-verified data at the time he pulls.  Once Linus 
republishes his tree (git push), there will be few, if any, wanting to 
verify Jeff Garzik's signature.

So no, I don't see that as a _driving_ need in the kernel's case.

And IMO the kernel will be a mix of signed and unsigned content for a 
while, possibly forever.


And Linus wrote:
[ Example gpg-signed small block that the attached patch adds to the
pull request: ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Commit be3fa9125e708348c7baf04ebe9507a72a9d1800
from git.kernel.org/pub/git
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOrsILAAoJEHm+PkMAQRiGxZcH/31e0RrBitXUPKxHJajD58yh
SIEe/7i6E2RUSFva3KybEuFslcR8p8DYzDQTPLejStvnkO8v0lXu9s9R53tvjLMF
aaQXLOgrOC2RqvzP4F27O972h32YpLBkwIdWQGAhYcUOdKYDZ9RfgEgtdJwSYuL+
oJ7TjLrtkcILaFmr9nYZC+0Fh7z+84R8kR53v0iBHJQOFfssuMjUWCoj9aEY12t+
pywXuVk2FsuYvhniCAcyU6Y1K9aXaf6w5iOY2hx/ysXtUBnv92F7lcathxQkvgjO
fA7/TXEcummOv5KQFc9vckd5Z1gN2ync5jhfnmlT2uiobE6mNdCbOVlCOpsKQkU=
=l5PG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This is my preference for kernel pull requests at the moment.  That has 
one advantage over Junio's "git pull --require-signature" and signed 
commits, notably, the URL is signed.

But in general signed commits would be nice, too.  pull-generated merge 
requests would need to be signed, potentially introducing an additional 
interactive step (GPG passphrase request) into an automated process.

	Jeff
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help