Re: [edk2-devel] Question about EDK2 and commit signing

["Pedro Falcato" <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>]

Hi James, Marvin,

Interesting points of view.
I still have a question though: If any part of the process got
compromised (maintainer, or in the worst case scenario, the repo
itself), is there anything that could be done
in order to assess the damage? I'd say signing could help establish
trust in a lot of those cases

Thanks,
Pedro

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:53 AM Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@posteo.de> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> Contributors: Git's stance is the author doesn't really matter as long
> as the code is acceptable. For most people, you will not know them
> anyway and it does not buy you much to know they own GitHub account XY.
> If someone is impersonating a maintainer (who would push the changes
> directly after review), that would be obvious anyway.
>
> Maintainers: Why would someone have access to your SSH key but not your
> GPG key? Especially if your commits are auto-signed, both keys are
> likely equally readable. More factors do not meaningfully increase
> security if they are not clearly separate.
>
> I'm sure nobody minds your signatures though. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Marvin
>
> On 11/09/2021 20:25, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Yesterday, when pushing my first commits to edk2-platforms (as the
> > Ext4Pkg maintainer), I noticed that my commits (see 7872c98 and
> > 71f3343) stick out like a sore thumb, as I have GPG signing on my
> > commits on by default (see git config commit.gpgsign), globally across
> > all my projects.
> >
> > Is there an official stance on signed commits? I was thinking that
> > commit signing, at least for the maintainers that apply and push
> > patches, could be useful as a way to establish authenticity for every
> > commit that gets to the edk2 repos.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pedro Falcato
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
>


-- 
Pedro Falcato