-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
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
Using timeout as the restricting mechanism fo signature verification #201
Comments
The idea here is to have a configurable default timeout for verify command and once we have reached that limit and havent found successful verification we will fail verification command. |
Also, we might want to pull in #197 to RC1 which would provide cushion for verification timeout |
The default timeout is hard to decide as we also need to consider network and CPU constraints. Basically, clients with better network and CPU power can verify more signatures and thus can further process the artifacts. Therefore, the verification result of artifacts is not deterministic if two clients verify the same artifact at the same time even the remote server returns the same response. It impacts the availability. It seems more reasonable to limit the number of signatures attempted. At least, we are able to verify one signature. Besides, I have no concerns to return successful outcome only. |
@shizhMSFT @priteshbandi in terms of only returning successful outcome, the change is included in PR #186 along with the refactoring of the verifier package. PTAL. |
My two cents: |
Per community discussions:
|
Define the CLI behavior and defaults in RC1 and implementation can be moved to RC2. The scenarios to be addressed will be as shown below but this is not the exhaustive list, but can be thought through more about it.
|
This issue will be split to three issues
|
As discussed in the community meeting on Nov 4, 2024, move this issue to future milestone. |
We should also modify the
VerificationOutcome
behavior to return only successful signature verification outcome.cc: @shizhMSFT @rgnote
Originally posted by @priteshbandi in #191 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: