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

sha1 check during pack add #91

Closed
jeromecoutant opened this issue May 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

sha1 check during pack add #91

jeromecoutant opened this issue May 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jeromecoutant
Copy link

Hi

For example, in CMIS_PACK_ROOT/ARM/CMSIS/5.9.0
there is a sha1 file: ARM.CMSIS.sha1

Does cpackget check this file while unzipping pack file?
If some sha1 is failing, is pack rejected ?

More info in https://open-cmsis-pack.github.io/Open-CMSIS-Pack-Spec/main/html/bash_script.html

Thx

@chaws
Copy link
Contributor

chaws commented May 26, 2022

No, cpackget does not check that sha1 file. I wasn't aware of that too, thanks for raising this issue!

@jkrech is this still part of packs schema? I'm asking because we never ran into that file before.

@jkrech
Copy link
Member

jkrech commented May 30, 2022

@chaws, this is "just a file" in the CMSIS pack but this does not mean it is part of "the specification". Therefore there is currently no requirement for cpackget to "validate" it.
In my view we should progress the specification of digital signatures for packs and how tools like cpackget should treat this information rather than thinking about a heuristic of checking certain files.

@chaws
Copy link
Contributor

chaws commented May 30, 2022

@jkrech Since this file is created in https://open-cmsis-pack.github.io/Open-CMSIS-Pack-Spec/main/html/bash_script.html, which is located in the official docs, cpackget could validate it only if the *.sha1 file is present. That should check for file integrity until digital signature is implemented. What do you think?

@jkrech
Copy link
Member

jkrech commented May 30, 2022

I would safe the time and focus on defects and other features, as this will become obsolete and is not defined by the standard.

@chaws
Copy link
Contributor

chaws commented May 31, 2022

Ack.

Just FYI @jeromecoutant I'm closing this issue and adding a note in #8 mentioning that per-file integrity check should be accomplished as well.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants