Re: Re: Speeding up Tree Verification

"Sid Spry" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 9:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 6/29/20 7:15 PM, Sid Spry wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 9:13 PM, Sid Spry wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have some runnable pseudocode outlining a faster tree verification algorithm.
> > 
> > Ah, right. It's worth noting that even faster than this algorithm is simply verifying
> > a .tar.xz. Is that totally off the table? I realize it doesn't fit every usecase, but it
> > seems to be faster in both sync and verification time.
> 
> We've already got support for that with sync-type = webrsync. However, I
> imagine sync-type = git is even better. All of the types are covered here:
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_Security

I'm being warned right now that webrsync-gpg is being deprecated; I've been using
it. It is, amazingly, faster than a typical rsync and may be faster than a git pull though.

The issue with git is there are some analyses that indicate you shouldn't rely on git
for integrity, so you are back to verifying the tree on-disk, which is slower than
verifying the .tar.xz.

(To clarify: Even with signed commits the commit hashes could be attacked and this
is considered somewhat feasible.)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.