-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
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
Correct and clarify "6.3.1 Updating targets metadata" for delegated targets roles #214
Comments
Also related:
|
+1000 |
To clarify: the reason restricting the delegation graphs to trees helps with the edge vs. node ambiguity is that with a tree delegation structure, associating keys with edges (delegations) is equivalent to associating keys with nodes (roles). This is because in a tree, there is exactly one incoming edge to each node, except for the root (top level targets). |
It does make things more difficult in situations where a repository is
shared by different users that want to delegate to each other. I'm not
sure if PyPI, TAF, or others want this model, but we should consider this
before making the change.
…On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:22 AM Ethan Lowman ***@***.***> wrote:
To clarify: the reason restricting the delegation graphs to trees helps
with the edge vs. node ambiguity is that with a tree delegation structure,
associating keys with edges (delegations) is equivalent to associating keys
with nodes (roles). This is because in a tree, there is exactly one
incoming edge to each node, except for the root (top level targets).
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#214 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGROD5QUUTDLPWOUQ5E4M3VDMXPTANCNFSM5R4JYR3A>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Step three of 6.3.1 states:
For delegated targets roles, keys are associated with delegations (edges), not roles (nodes) in the delegation graph. The spec glosses over a lot of detail here. I think the intended meaning is that for each incoming delegation to a role, the metadata is signed for a threshold of the keys for that specific delegation edge. There is not necessarily just one threshold or one set of keys.
I see two choices: we could fix the spec for all these edge cases for strange delegation graphs (e.g. #177), or adjust the spec to explicitly state that delegation graphs must be trees (i.e. each targets role must have only one incoming delegation). I haven't heard of anyone using non-tree delegation graphs in practice, and supporting these use cases makes code more complex, and therefore probably less secure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: