search

WebAssembly / tool-conventions

Conventions supporting interoperatibility between tools working with WebAssembly.
Artistic License 2.0
302 stars 67 forks source link

Signatures.md: digital signatures for WebAssembly modules #171

Closed jedisct1 closed 2 years ago

jedisct1 commented 3 years ago

Add Signatures.md, describing a signature format for WebAssembly modules.

This is a work in progress, and the format is still subject to change.

The Signatures.md file here will be kept up to date as changes are being made, but we still need a place for discussions and reference implementations.

Signatures for WebAssembly modules are currently being discussed here: https://github.com/wasm-signatures/design

Would it make sense to move that design/discussion repository to the WebAssembly organization?

jedisct1 commented 3 years ago

In the context of tool-conventions, this document only focuses a proposal for custom sections dedicated to storing digital signatures.

Even though the format remains subject to changes, and other aspects of signatures for WebAssembly modules will be discussed outside this repository, would it be acceptable to have the document included here as a reference for early implementers?

/cc @tlively @kripken @dschuff @sunfishcode

dschuff commented 3 years ago

In general I do think it would be appropriate to have it documented here; this isn't too different from what we do with LLVM (e.g. sometimes design issues are discussed in other forums and implemented in LLVM before being documented here). I would say that some folks involved with that work should follow this repo so that they can respond to bug reports and questions (and if there is a primary place where more discussion should take place, there should be a link there in this doc).

jedisct1 commented 2 years ago

Could this be merged?

dschuff commented 2 years ago

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think this doc needs a link to the canonical/best place where relevant discussion should take place (if it's not this repo) so that readers know where to find out more. Other than that I think it's ready to merge.

jedisct1 commented 2 years ago

Hi @dschuff !

A section on discussion venues has been added.

We also now have a public PoC implementation of the proposal documented here.

dschuff commented 2 years ago

Thanks!