Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tools/client: move to CoCo AA, use single threaded runtime #103

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2023

Conversation

mythi
Copy link
Contributor

@mythi mythi commented May 31, 2023

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@fitzthum fitzthum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@fitzthum
Copy link
Member

CI is failing because of #102

@@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ base64.workspace = true
clap = { version = "4.0.29", features = ["derive"] }
env_logger.workspace = true
jwt-simple = "0.11.4"
kbs_protocol = { git = "https://github.com/jialez0/attestation-agent", branch = "token" }
kbs_protocol = { git = "https://github.com/confidential-containers/attestation-agent", rev = "aa1d3c5" }
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This dependency relationship brings a potential problem:

If we want the code dependencies in each release to be self-consistent, here the rev of attestation-agent should be a release tag.

However there is a dilemma:

  • release of attestation-agent depends on KBS: CI of guest stack should use a KBS/AS image.
  • release of KBS depends on attestation-agent: Here

There might be two different solutions to resolve

  1. move this tool to attestation-agent repo from here
  2. we first cut releases for guest stack using a self-built image in CI, after that update the rev here and cut release for AS/KBS and finally replace the image in CI. Also we can think about @surajssd 's idea as Alpha release for v0.6.0 #96 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While playing with the tool, I also thought about option 1 which would probably be the simplest "fix". I guess the caveat to that is that then there's no "sample client" in this repo.

@Xynnn007
Copy link
Member

Xynnn007 commented Jun 1, 2023

@mythi Please rebase with the latest code. Ideally it could help pass the CI.

@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 merged commit 5d94595 into confidential-containers:main Jun 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants