From nobody Thu Jan 19 13:58:12 2023 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NyPNY6TpRz2t0xq for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:58:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com) Received: from echo.brtsvcs.net (echo.brtsvcs.net [208.111.40.118]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NyPNY1dJCz3LK5 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:58:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from chombo.houseloki.net (65-100-43-2.dia.static.qwest.net [65.100.43.2]) by echo.brtsvcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE05A38D0B; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.26.25.100] (ivy.pas.ds.pilgrimaccounting.com [10.26.25.100]) by chombo.houseloki.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9787024B5A; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Can security/ca_root_nss be retired? To: Tomoaki AOKI , ports@freebsd.org References: <551458a3-665f-9f55-8ef9-1dd23e1e3aee@bluerosetech.com> <20230119210801.97b4eef4e21b96d40721b31a@dec.sakura.ne.jp> From: Mel Pilgrim Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:58:12 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20230119210801.97b4eef4e21b96d40721b31a@dec.sakura.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4NyPNY1dJCz3LK5 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:208.111.40.0/24, country:US] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 2023-01-19 4:08, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 03:13:48 -0800 > Mel Pilgrim wrote: > >> Given /usr/share/certs exists for all supported releases, is there any >> reason to keep the ca_root_nss port? > > If everyone in the world uses LATEST main only, yes. > But the assumption is clearly nonsense. > > Basically, commits to main are settled a while before MFC to stable > branches, and MFS to releng branches needs additional settling days. > > If any certs happened to be non-reliable, this delay can cause, at > worst, catastorphic scenario. > > If updates to certs are always promised to be "MFC after: now" and > committed to ALL SUPPORTED BRANCHES AT ONCE, I have no objection. > > If not, keeping ca_root_nss port and updated ASAP with upstream should > be mandatory. If ca_root_nss delivered the certs in the same format, sure, but that monolithic file makes installing private CAs a hassle. I wonder if the script secteam uses to update the trust store in the src tree could be turned into a periodic script that automatically updates the trust store? Side-step the release engineering delay entirely by turning trust store updates into a user task.