Conversation
|
FYI @ramonpetgrave64:
BTW, now that I had a look at it, I think the current RekorClient is a bit of a mess: it probably needs a redesign even without rekor-tiles. |
a45d567 to
669c49b
Compare
|
Thanks @jku! I'll review now.
We can close #1276; you've made much more progress than I've had time to 🙂
Sounds good to me! |
The one thing I now started thinging about is For reference: We could add some code to still handle v0.1: the problem is that it can't really be complete support (since 0.1 is not extensive enough) so I'd rather drop it assuming that it's not going annoy too many people |
|
@woodruffw or @di a final review would be welcome (I only added a changelog line after last review) |
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
Verifier only needs a Rekor client for the detached materials hack in _cli... and it should not be using SigningConfig to get it. * This is an API change for Verifier: I believe the proposed API should be stable now * RekorClient definitely needs more work: I'm just punting the can down the road here. Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <jkukkonen@google.com>
* Let's forget that v0.1 ever existed (it was not really used): We could try to support both but since 0.1 does not really work, I won't bother * Support signing config v0.2 in a minimal way (see note on selectors below) Things that could be improved: * Rekor client is still a bit of a hack: that area likely needs a redesign * The "service selectors" in SigningConfig are not all yet supported: Only the ANY selector works (this is the one staging will use soon) * The CLI does not yet use the OIDC provider specified in SigningConfig (this should be a small refactor) Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <jkukkonen@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <jkukkonen@google.com>
|
rebased, fixed conflicts |
|
Related: are we considering this a breaking change, i.e. a runup for a v4 release? Technically it changes the (I don't have a super strong opinion here, since ~nobody is probably using the current |
This is built on top of #1276: I'm fine with merging that first or closing that one and merging all the proto changes at once in this PR.
This PR upgrades us to the most recent protobuf-specs. Changes include (on top of 1276):
SigningConfigclass has been added to handle parsing the data in itI'd like to handle followups in other PRS, mainly I'm thinking of: