Review third-party application access to llvm github organization and create guidelines for granting access

llvm / llvm-iwg

The LLVM Infrastructure Working Group

https://foundation.llvm.org/docs/infrastructure-wg/

Other

18 stars 14 forks source link

Review third-party application access to llvm github organization and create guidelines for granting access #40

Closed tstellar closed 3 years ago

tstellar commented 3 years ago

We have the following third-party applications approved to access the llvm organization:

Sourcerer
Buildkite
LLVM Buildbot
LLVM Staging Buildbot
LLVM Buildbot

https://github.com/organizations/llvm/settings/oauth_application_policy

We should review this and decide what are still needed and create guidelines for granting access.

lazyparser commented 3 years ago

FYI I do not have read permission for this link (and I think it is right).

The github has two level permission model (org, repo) and people can be organized as teams. Buildbots should not have write/push permission for modifying repo.

joker-eph commented 3 years ago

Is the "build status" on GitHub commits requiring some level of write permissions?

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

For the CI systems, I suppose they send the build results back to GitHub to be displayed in the commit history: UI, API

The documentation says, users need push access to be able to set these status.

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

@tstellar what is "Sourcerer"? Is it https://sourcerer.io/ ?

tstellar commented 3 years ago

@tstellar what is "Sourcerer"? Is it https://sourcerer.io/ ?

Yes, that's it.

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

My proposal:

Keep the CI systems (Buildkite, LLVM Buildbot, LLVM Staging Buildbot), as they report build results back to GitHub. I see a clear value in having an overview of all build results.
Remove Sourcerer.io as I do not understand why they need access to our repository. If they want to index the data, they can do that anyway.

For the policy I would propose:

We should define a body within LLVM who reviews and takes these decisions (board? iwg?).
The decisions should be documented. The features of each application must clearly outweigh the security/safety/privacy concerns.
The decision should be sent out to the community for review, feedback shall be reviewed and discussed with in 2 weeks and the decision shall be revisited then.
Once a year the body shall go through the entire list and check if they are still needed.

Footnote: Sourcerer.io seems to be collecting user data without user consent. I am not sure if this is in line with GDPR.

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

@tstellar what is "Sourcerer"? Is it https://sourcerer.io/ ?

Yes, that's it.

Here's an example page of a user profile on sourcerer.io (found via Google search): https://sourcerer.io/josh-payne

asl commented 3 years ago

FYI: I added integration to LLVM buildbots, so they will report the status of revisions there.

tstellar commented 3 years ago

I've removed sourcerer.io from the list of third-party apps, so now all that are left are buildbot and buildkite, which are fine.

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

How do you want to proceed with the general guidelines for this? Where do you want to document them?

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

next step: @ChristianKuehnel create a proposal for a document in the llvm-project, send it to mailing list for review.

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

stale effort, removing from our backlog

ChristianKuehnel commented 3 years ago

I created a proposal for such a policy: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111723