-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
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
Question: What would we expect whenever the server restarts ? It is okay to recreate the repository again and again. #265
Comments
Correct, because signatures are generated during the metadata creation, so recreating the metadata would result in different bytes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, let me give this a stab! If we can also store the TUF repo signing key in the secrets on the initial creation, then we can do the following if the server is being re-started:
Clients will be able to chain their existing Does that make sense? We can further simplify if we use the same signing key for all roles. Then we don't need to do step (2). |
I think that makes sense. Just to make sure I'm on the same page, if we were to take the results from here: And move it to where we create the unified secret instead of doing in the server and serialize it and then unserialize it on server restart, that would also work? But, I kind of like exercising also the resigning path, by doing this, we could add some more testing on this path by restarting and ensuring that things keep working? |
Yes! If we took the entire
Good idea, I can add some testing that recreates the repo and uses sigstore's tuf client to continue verifying |
Ok, thanks! I think it might be easier and be better for testing to do what you suggest then instead of serializing/unserializing, I think. Also more tests are always good :) |
Hi folks, I think this has been fixed by #1214 - you can now run the TUF server with |
Thank you!!! |
Question: What would we expect whenever the server restarts ? It is okay to recreate the repository again and again.
Originally posted by @hectorj2f in #262 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: