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

Use new gitlab gpg keys for package management #331

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2020

Conversation

jkroepke
Copy link
Contributor

Pull Request (PR) description

As document in https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/update/package_signatures gitlab gpg keys expire soon and needs to be replace with new one.

The old key is valid until 2020-04-15 while is new keys starts at 2020-04-06.

A release of this module in this time slot should useful to avoid some local breaking changes.

This PR is created at 2020-03-28. I except test failures until 2020-04-06.

@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Mar 30, 2020

@jkroepke You also need to cover the RSpec checks for RHEL, since the URL has changed.

@dhoppe dhoppe added the needs-work not ready to merge just yet label Mar 30, 2020
@dnsmichi dnsmichi mentioned this pull request Apr 1, 2020
@jkroepke
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkroepke commented Apr 2, 2020

Unit tests are green now. ITs should work in 3 days.

@baurmatt
Copy link
Contributor

baurmatt commented Apr 3, 2020

I don't like the fact that we have to wait until the key is active (and the old one is inactive) to merge/release this. What do you think about adding both keys and removing the old one in a couple of days/weeks/months?

@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Apr 3, 2020

@baurmatt Just take a look at #333. @dnsmichi explained how to change the configuration manually. It should not be a problem to merge this pull request on time and create a new release.

@baurmatt baurmatt closed this Apr 6, 2020
@baurmatt baurmatt reopened this Apr 6, 2020
@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Apr 6, 2020

@baurmatt You do not need to reopen this pull request, to trigger an Travis CI build. The result will not change, because GitLab still offers the old GPG key. I already contacted the support via Twitter.

@baurmatt
Copy link
Contributor

baurmatt commented Apr 6, 2020

@baurmatt You do not need to reopen this pull request, to trigger an Travis CI build. The result will not change, because GitLab still offers the old GPG key. I already contacted the support via Twitter.

Interesting, that explains the failing test ;)

@jkroepke
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkroepke commented Apr 6, 2020

Since gitlab is a global team, they should always announce dates with timezones ...

@dnsmichi
Copy link

dnsmichi commented Apr 6, 2020

It is hard to track down when things are exactly done, especially when there's a certain chance that assignees change and so will timezones then. I can understand your concerns too, still, not so easy ;)

I'd recommend to follow the infrastructure group for these kind of changes. Luckily everything is developed and discussed in the open :) I just checked in there too, no changes to the issue yet.

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/infrastructure/-/issues/9576

@jkroepke jkroepke closed this Apr 6, 2020
@jkroepke jkroepke reopened this Apr 6, 2020
@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Apr 6, 2020

@JanKoppe You can trigger a rebuild after logging into the Travis CI web interface. I already did that, but there is still an issue regarding CentOS.

@jkroepke jkroepke closed this Apr 6, 2020
@jkroepke jkroepke reopened this Apr 6, 2020
@jkroepke
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkroepke commented Apr 6, 2020

Looking at

https://packages.gitlab.com/install/repositories/gitlab/gitlab-ce/config_file.repo?os=centos&dist=7&source=script

the yum config doesn't need to be change since the gpg key redirects to the new location:

curl -sI https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce/gpgkey | grep Location
Location: https://packages.gitlab.com/gpg.key

See also: 43fa23b

@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Apr 6, 2020

@jkroepke I am not sure about this. I think this script will use the old GPG keys:

  • E15E78F4 - Expires 2020-04-15
  • F27EAB47 - Expires 2020-07-01

I think the packages need to be resigned with the new GPG key:

  • 51312F3F - Valid since 2020-03-02
[root@localhost packages]# rpm -qpi gitlab-ce-12.9.2-ce.0.el6.x86_64.rpm
warning: gitlab-ce-12.9.2-ce.0.el6.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID f27eab47: NOKEY
Name        : gitlab-ce                    Relocations: /
Version     : 12.9.2                            Vendor: Omnibus <omnibus@getchef.com>
Release     : ce.0.el6                      Build Date: Tue 31 Mar 2020 06:17:13 PM UTC
Install Date: (not installed)               Build Host: runner-d1f91b99-project-283-concurrent-0
Group       : default                       Source RPM: gitlab-ce-12.9.2-ce.0.el6.src.rpm
Size        : 1739816979                       License: MIT
Signature   : RSA/SHA1, Tue 31 Mar 2020 06:22:59 PM UTC, Key ID 3cfcf9baf27eab47
Packager    : GitLab, Inc. <support@gitlab.com>
URL         : https://about.gitlab.com/
Summary     : GitLab Community Edition (including NGINX, Postgres, Redis)
Description :
GitLab Community Edition (including NGINX, Postgres, Redis)

@jkroepke
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkroepke commented Apr 6, 2020

I think the script will use one of the current keys.

Since https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce/gpgkey redirects to
https://packages.gitlab.com/gpg.key which is according to https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/update/package_signatures the correct location of the gpg key.

Since we have both two keys configured here it should work with newer packages.

@dhoppe dhoppe merged commit 6471a32 into voxpupuli:master Apr 7, 2020
@dhoppe dhoppe added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 7, 2020
@jkroepke jkroepke deleted the new_gpg_keys branch April 7, 2020 09:07
guikcd added a commit to Oxalide/puppet-gitlab that referenced this pull request Apr 15, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants