From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F353858D37 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:07:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 99F353858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1663157240; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=71nxNCHI5aSJNfJEKK2z1CPiH9mC4ry7qZDxS3QQ3yw=; b=OFSc9qpZ6quMSqej9zDWQrmgB6j4fXfpL0pyy61EuSQQ7UVir2LPQzgpKJpDjfBNSccADf Jkn4yDgPhMllQ4gyWzhgRRD85vul3O4AWXUYwOPVfdzu3TTAtOGbaBNJO6e7iA0643lwpa 9dGoyvYmjnxxiqlVdoBDF9R6wMRSIrk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-556-gVA7vageOryFND0xT9eObw-1; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 08:07:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: gVA7vageOryFND0xT9eObw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F286A811E67; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B23A0492B05; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 28EC7Fdb1975854 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:07:15 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 28EC7E6U1975853; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:07:14 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:07:14 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Ulrich Drepper via Gcc Subject: Re: commit signing Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 01:31:06PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > How does this improve supply chain security if the signing happens > automagically rather than manually at points somebody actually > did extra verification? That is, what's the attack vector this helps with? > > What's the extra space requirement if every commit is signed? I suspect > the signatures themselves do not compress well. Note, right now we sign the release tags and I think one basepoint (basepoints/gcc-11) is signed too (but the rest of them aren't). Jakub