Closed yuvalk closed 1 year ago
python3-3.11.3-2.fc38.x86_64 (updates)
Well, we're trying to keep Python out of the image. Why is it pulling it?
If we include LibreSwan, then why not strongSwan? Should we have both, only one or none? (Partial answer is that only Libreswan is in RHEL and strongSwan is in EPEL).
Should we include other VPN plugins for NetworkManager? We already have the tools for Wireguard in the image.
Does the software provided by the package have a history of CVEs?
no :-)
There certainly are CVEs for Libreswan: https://libreswan.org/security/
CC @LorbusChris for OKD-FCOS if we end up not including it.
There certainly are CVEs for Libreswan: https://libreswan.org/security/
obviously you are right, sorry I had the NM plugin in mind :-)
If we include LibreSwan, then why not strongSwan? Should we have both, only one or none? (Partial answer is that only Libreswan is in RHEL and strongSwan is in EPEL).
not entirely an expert here, but I think they also differ in certifications (FIPS etal)
python3-3.11.3-2.fc38.x86_64 (updates)
Well, we're trying to keep Python out of the image. Why is it pulling it?
seems like it's used by some of the ipsec utils in libreswan:
/usr/libexec/ipsec/show
/usr/libexec/ipsec/verify
Reference for why we don't want Python: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/blob/main/Design.md#approach-towards-shipping-python
My inclination is to make this a RHCOS extension. For FCOS, we have container layering and client side layering (the latter of which currently is how RHCOS extensions work, but hopefully soon the MCO will switch to doing this via containers).
We discussed this in the community meeting today
17:35:44 <bgilbert> #agreed We will not add Libreswan support to FCOS for now. It pulls in several additional packages, including Python, and we'd also need to decide whether to add strongSwan. We can revisit this in the future if demand is high.
See https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBU-633, https://github.com/openshift/os/pull/1308 & https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/pull/3726 for RHCOS/OCP side of things.
I think a better way is to add a spec file flag to not install "ipsec show" and "ipsec verify". These tools are not commonly used at all. I would prefer to do that upstream, than to create a sub package
After internal discussion, we decided to remove these two old ipsec subcommands using python. They were not adding much and hadnt aged well anyway. So libreswan core package should no longer pull in python (in libreswan 5.0 and later)
What, if any, are the additional dependencies on the package? (i.e. does it pull in Python, Perl, etc)
What is the size of the package and its dependencies?
rpm -qi just gives:
so you might wanna fix that in the template I've installed dnf and used that as alternative, here' is the list
What problem are you trying to solve with this package? Or what functionality does the package provide?
enable host ipsec VPN tunnels
Can the software provided by the package be run from a container? Explain why or why not.
might be possible from container for some use cases but really cumbersome for cases where the VPN tunnel is the only network channel to the host. one of the main problem of that is with extra mechanisms needed to provide updates to that container (cause it have to be up and running to receive such updates)
so IMHO it'll be much nicer, easier and better UX, if it was included in the base OS.
Can the tool(s) provided by the package be helpful in debugging container runtime issues?
well not directly, but indirectly, again for said use cases where VPN is the only way to access the host, yes, it is helpful
Can the tool(s) provided by the package be helpful in debugging networking issues?
well not directly, but indirectly, again for said use cases where VPN is the only way to access the host, yes, it is helpful :-)
Is it possible to layer the package onto the base OS as a day 2 operation? Explain why or why not.
Normally I'd say, yes it can. but much more problematic in disconnected environments.. (when installing in networks without internet access)
In the case of packages providing services and binaries, can the packaging be adjusted to just deliver binaries?
the libreswan package include a service, but it's not enabled (nor need to be enabled to be useful)
Can the tool(s) provided by the package be used to do things we’d rather users not be able to do in FCOS?
I dont think so
Does the software provided by the package have a history of CVEs?
no :-)