From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/6] pkg-infra: add possiblity to check downloaded files against known hashes
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:53:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DAA361.8040100@lucaceresoli.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140117224136.GE3982@free.fr>
Hi Yann, Arnout,
Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Arnout, All,
>
> On 2014-01-15 09:22 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>> On 15/01/14 00:34, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>> Arnout, All,
>>>
>>> On 2014-01-14 22:37 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>>>> On 13/01/14 00:44, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> Note-2: The laternative to sha1 would be sha2 (256- or 512-bit), but
>>>>> oldish "enterprise-class" distributions may be missing them entirely.
>>>>> sha256sum and sha512sum were added to coreutils in 2005-10-23, and RHEL5
>>>>> seems to have them. But better be safe than sorry. If sha2 should be
>>>>> considered instead of sha1, then it is very easy to switch now. Switching
>>>>> later would require that we revalidate all packages that have hashes,
>>>>> which could prove to be quite time-demanding if we have lots of
>>>>> packages using hashes.
>>>>
>>>> We can be more future-safe by storing the hash that is used in the .hash
>>>> file itself.
>>>
>>> Hu?
>>
>> If the hash file contains the following:
>>
>> 486fb55c3efa71148fe07895fd713ea3a5ae343a sha1 libfoo-1.2.3.tar.bz2
>
> OK, I see what you meant, now.
>
>> then you can now let the script check that the second field is sha1, and
>> later you can support different hash methods. In that case, it is not
>> necessary to update all the files when we want to switch to a new hash
>> method.
>
> However, that means the file is no longer the output of:
> sha1sum files-to-check* >package.hash
>
> or of any other hash utility: sha*sum all generates similarly-formatted
> outputs:
> hash <two spaces> filename
>
> Which was the reason I choose that format.
>
> If we'd use your suggestion, we'd need a simple way to generate that
> file, or it'd be error prone.
Or keep in BR one file per each hash algorithm: a *.hash.sha1
file, a *.hash.sha256 file etc. Whichever file(s) are found are
checked.
This would save both needs, wouldn't it? It should not take many more
lines of code to implement.
--
Luca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-18 15:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-12 23:44 [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] some download-related changes Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-12 23:44 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/6] Makefile: rename USER_HOOKS_EXTRA_ENV to EXTRA_ENV Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-14 20:44 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-12 23:44 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/6] pkg-infra: move git download helper to a script Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-13 14:18 ` Luca Ceresoli
2014-01-13 17:51 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-14 20:39 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-14 22:49 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-12 23:44 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/6] pkg-infra: git helper creates an empty archive if PKG_VERSION is a missing hash Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-13 14:22 ` Luca Ceresoli
2014-01-13 17:50 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-14 20:43 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-14 23:21 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-15 8:17 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-17 22:35 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-12 23:44 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/6] package infra: DOWNLOAD is never called with two arguments Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-14 20:51 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-12 23:44 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/6] pkg-infra: add possiblity to check downloaded files against known hashes Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-13 4:53 ` Baruch Siach
2014-01-13 17:52 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-14 21:37 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-14 23:34 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-15 8:22 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-15 13:22 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2014-01-17 23:02 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-18 0:33 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2014-01-17 22:41 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-18 15:53 ` Luca Ceresoli [this message]
2014-01-15 0:08 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2014-01-12 23:44 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 6/6] package/ca-certificates: add tarball's hash Yann E. MORIN
2014-01-14 21:39 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] some download-related changes Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-01-14 23:39 ` Yann E. MORIN
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52DAA361.8040100@lucaceresoli.net \
--to=luca@lucaceresoli.net \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox