Skip to content
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

os.proto package verification question #75

Open
aaronmillisor opened this issue May 11, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

os.proto package verification question #75

aaronmillisor opened this issue May 11, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@aaronmillisor
Copy link

In the os.proto definition there is a suggestion that the transferred file should check the hash of the image against a known good hash, with the hash ideally being embedded in the package itself.

https://github.com/openconfig/gnoi/blob/master/os/os.proto#L33

  // The OS package file format is platform dependent. The platform MUST
  // validate that the OS package that is supplied is valid and bootable. This
  // SHOULD include a hash check against a known good hash. It is recommended
  // that the hash is embedded in the OS package.

Assuming that the hash we are discussing is something like an md5sum of the image we are transferring, how is a previous version of an OS image expected to know the hash of a future image? Also, how would the hash be expected to be included within the image against which the hash is being checked?

@samribeiro samribeiro self-assigned this May 12, 2022
@samribeiro
Copy link
Member

Hi @aaronmillisor, there are no expectations about a previous OS version having any knowledge regarding future OS binary hashes. Anything after SHOULD is a recommendation and is up to the platform to implement at their own preference, as long as the end goal of validating that the uploaded binary is valid and bootable, is achieved.

While reading this section I do agree that it can be further improved to communicate this idea better.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants