Re: [docs] [PATCH] security-manual: Add information about how security is handled in builds

Hi,

On Tue Aug 11, 2026 at 10:20 AM CEST, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-08-11 at 10:01 +0200, Antonin Godard wrote:
>> On Fri Aug 7, 2026 at 6:43 PM CEST, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> > We have no information about how security is handled within the builds
>> > themselves. Start to document this.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> >  .../security-manual/build-security.rst        | 41 +++++++++++++++++++
>> >  documentation/security-manual/index.rst       |  1 +
>> >  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>> >  create mode 100644 documentation/security-manual/build-security.rst
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/documentation/security-manual/build-security.rst b/documentation/security-manual/build-security.rst
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 000000000..5f15d5f64
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/documentation/security-manual/build-security.rst
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
>> > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK
>> > +
>> > +**************
>> > +Build Security
>> 
>> I suggest renaming it to "OpenEmbedded Build System Security", as "Build" alone
>> could be interpreted in many different ways, including builds for specific
>> software components, etc.
>
> Perhaps "Build Process Security"? I think build system isn't quit the
> right thing here.

Works for me :)

>> 
>> > +**************
>> > +
>> > +OpenEmbedded is used to run the builds and careful consideration has gone into
>> 
>> When you say "OpenEmbedded" I guess you mean the community? Or the build system?
>> 
>> We have a :term:`OpenEmbedded Build System` that could be used here if relevant.
>
> That seems like the right thing to use.
>
>> > +how it does this with the aim of being both secure and reproducible. Like any
>> > +system, it does need to be used carefully and in keeping with the design for
>> > +that to be true. Users of the system should consider that:
>> > +
>> > +-  The builds generally aim for any input into the build process being verified in
>> > +   some form. For source code tarballs, these would have a checksum. Git source
>> > +   trees would have a specific git revision. Metadata would also usually be
>> > +   under source control and also have revisions.
>> 
>> Add a link to our fetching documentation here?
>> 
>> """
>> See the :doc:`bitbake:bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-fetching` section
>> of the BitBake User Manual for more information.
>> """
>
> Sure, I intended this as a first pass and figured it might need some
> markup/tweaking. Sorry for the spelling :/.

No problem :)

>> 
>> > +
>> > +-  Some elements that can influence the build are not verified. It is assumed
>> > +   that the operating system running the system is secure and of a known setup and
>> > +   version. The system goes to signififant lengths to isolate against host
>> > +   contamination of the output but it is certainly possible, especially malicously.
>> 
>> typo: maliciously
>> 
>> Link to our supported distros here?
>> 
>> """
>> See the :ref:`system-requirements-supported-distros` section of the Yocto
>> Project Reference Manual for more information on supported host distributions.
>> """
>> 
>> > +
>> > +-  The builds assume DL_DIR is a safe location. Once things enter that location
>> 
>> s/DL_DIR/:term:`DL_DIR`/
>> 
>> > +   there are not repeatedly re-verified. A user could edit the git trees or
>> > +   tarballs there in ways the build might not detect.
>> 
>> I guess this will be better detailed with
>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16102. Maybe the documentation
>> coming from this bug should be linked here then.
>
> This text was intended to help close 16102 :/. We've not managed to get
> anyone else to provide such information. Certainly if any more is
> forthcoming, this would be the place to add it. I did want to document
> something before we close that bug though.

Ah I see, ok, I guess that's already something and if someone comes up with more
information about the subject then there's already a place in the docs where
that can be added.

Thanks,
Antonin