Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use keyless cosign approach #152

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Use keyless cosign approach #152

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Brend-Smits
Copy link
Member

Still a work in progress.

Todo:

  • Retrieve public key(s)
  • Publish public key(s)

Signed-off-by: Brend Smits [email protected]

@Brend-Smits Brend-Smits requested a review from a team as a code owner March 2, 2022 09:07
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 2, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #152 (1d823a5) into main (db23432) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #152   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.54%   77.54%           
=======================================
  Files          15       15           
  Lines         610      610           
=======================================
  Hits          473      473           
  Misses         97       97           
  Partials       40       40           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 77.54% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.


Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update db23432...1d823a5. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@marcofranssen marcofranssen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As described here #122. We decided to hold this back for a while.

Changes look good

We have to consider how to deal with the old releases, to make it transparent for our consumers on how to verify old releases and how to verify the new releases.

Currently the cosign.pub is not part of the release and only in the git repo.

We should think of a strategy how we make this transparent for our consumers which key to use to verify which version.

@@ -70,6 +70,10 @@ jobs:
container_repos: ${{ steps.container_info.outputs.container_repos }}

runs-on: ubuntu-20.04
permissions:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

probably better to set for the entire workflow as all jobs require it.

@@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ jobs:
LDFLAGS: ${{ steps.release-vars.outputs.LDFLAGS }}
GIT_HASH: ${{ steps.release-vars.outputs.GIT_HASH }}
COSIGN_PASSWORD: ${{ secrets.COSIGN_PASSWORD }}
COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL: 1
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe also move this to the job level.

@Brend-Smits
Copy link
Member Author

As described here #122. We decided to hold this back for a while.

Changes look good

We have to consider how to deal with the old releases, to make it transparent for our consumers on how to verify old releases and how to verify the new releases.

Currently the cosign.pub is not part of the release and only in the git repo.

We should think of a strategy how we make this transparent for our consumers which key to use to verify which version.

Makes sense, I'm going to close this PR until we have more time to work on those things. Keeping the branch. I meant to open a draft PR anyways!

@Brend-Smits Brend-Smits closed this Mar 7, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants