As the boot-image-se builds a fake image, the secret
CI_HKD_PATH is not necessary anymore.
Remove it from the workflows.
Signed-off-by: Hyounggyu Choi <Hyounggyu.Choi@ibm.com>
The ITA_KEY secret was conditionally passed to TDX jobs for Intel
Trust Authority attestation, but it is no longer needed. Remove it
from all workflow files and the test helper export.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <ffidencio@nvidia.com>
The two ignored cases are strictly necessary for the CI to work today, and we
have various security mitigations in place.
Signed-off-by: Aurélien Bombo <abombo@microsoft.com>
The default suggestion for top-level permissions was
`contents: read`, but scorecard notes anything other than empty,
so try updating it and see if there are any issues. I think it's
only needed if we run workflows from other repos.
Signed-off-by: stevenhorsman <steven@uk.ibm.com>
This completely eliminates the Azure secret from the repo, following the below
guidance:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-for-github-actions/security-hardening-your-deployments/configuring-openid-connect-in-azure
The federated identity is scoped to the `ci` environment, meaning:
* I had to specify this environment in some YAMLs. I don't believe there's any
downside to this.
* As previously, the CI works seamlessly both from PRs and in the manual
workflow.
I also deleted the tools/packaging/kata-deploy/action folder as it doesn't seem
to be used anymore, and it contains a reference to the secret.
Signed-off-by: Aurélien Bombo <abombo@microsoft.com>
Having secrets unconditionally being inherited is
bad practice, so update the workflows to only pass
through the minimal secrets that are needed
Signed-off-by: stevenhorsman <steven@uk.ibm.com>
We have a number of jobs that nest the build-static-tarball
workflows later on. Due to these doing attest build provenance,
and pushing to ghcr.io, t hey need write permissions on
`packages`, `id-token` and `attestations`, so we need to set
these permissions on the top-level jobs (along with `contents: read`),
so they are not blocked.
Signed-off-by: stevenhorsman <steven@uk.ibm.com>
to allow selective testing as well as selective list of required tests
let's add a mapping of required jobs/tests in "skips.py" and a
"gatekeaper" workflow that will ensure the expected required jobs were
successful. Then we can only mark the "gatekeaper" as the required job
and modify the logic to suit our needs.
Fixes: #9237
Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor <ldoktor@redhat.com>
If a PR contains files from the ignore-paths, these actions do not run
as intended. However, the actions are make as required. And there does
not seem to be a way to mark these as non-required in that case.
As a result a PR containing the files from the ignore-paths remains
stalled.
Hence remove the ignore-paths until github provides a way to mark
actions that are skipped due to ignore-paths as non-required/passed.
Fixes: #8663
Signed-off-by: Archana Shinde <archana.m.shinde@intel.com>
We're changing what's been done as part of ac939c458c, as we've
notcied issues using `github.event.pull_request.merge_commit_sha`.
Basically, whenever a force-push would happen, the reference of
merge_commit_sha wouldn't be updated, leading us to test PRs with the
old code. :-/
In order to get the rebase properly working, we need to ensure we pull
the hash of the commit as part of checkout action, and ensure
fetch-depth is set to 0.
Fixes: #7414
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
We have two scenarios we care about this, `pull_request` and
`pull_request_target` events triggered a job.
`pull_request` event:
When using the checkout action, it'll already provide a "rebased atop of
main" repo for us, nothing else is needed, and that's basically what we
already have as part of the jobs in our CI.
`pull_request_target` event:
This one is a little bit tricky, as the checkout action, unless passing
a spsecific repo, give us the PR checked out rebased atop of the HEAD of
the PR branch. Jeremi Piotrowski nicely pointed out that we could use
github.event.pull_request.merge_commit_sha instead, which is the result
of the PR's branch with the official repo target branch.
Now, the only cases where the contributor's rebase would still be needed
is when the action itself has been changed.
Fixes: #7414
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
As we only support one stable branch, it'll be used as part of the
stable-3.2 and onwards.
Fixes: #7518
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
We should not go through the trouble of running all our tests on AKS /
Azure / baremetal machines in case a PR only changes our documentation.
Fixes: #7258
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
On cc3993d860 we introduced a regression,
where we started passing inputs.commit-hash, instead of
github.event.pull_request.head.sha. However, we have been setting
commit-hash to github.event.pull_request.sha, meaning that we're mssing
a `.head.` there.
github.event.pull_request.sha is empty for the pull_request_target
event, leading the CI to pull the content from `main` instead of the
content from the PR.
Fixes: #7247
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
We have to do this, otherwise we cannot log into azure.
This is a regression introduced by
106e305717.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
de83cd9de7 tried to solve an issue, but it
clearly seems that I'm using env wrongly, as what ended up being passed
as input was "$VAR", instead of the content of the VAR variable.
As we can simply avoid using those here, let's do it and save us a
headache.
Fixes: #7247
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Otherwise we'll get the following error from the workflow:
```
The workflow is not valid. .github/workflows/ci-on-push.yaml (Line: 24,
Col: 20): Unrecognized named-value: 'env'. Located at position 1 within
expression: env.COMMIT_HASH .github/workflows/ci-on-push.yaml (Line: 25,
Col: 18): Unrecognized named-value: 'env'. Located at position 1 within
expression: env.PR_NUMBER
```
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This is based on the `ci-on-push.yaml` file, and it's called from ther
The reason to split on a new file is that we can easily introduce a
`ci-nightly.yaml` file and re-use the `ci.yaml` file there as well.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's ensure we're not relying, on any of the called workflows, on event
specific information.
Right now, the two information we've been relying on are:
* PR number, coming from github.event.pull_request.number
* Commit hash, coming from github.event.pull_request.head.sha
As we want to, in the future, add nightly jobs, which will be triggered
by a different event (thus, having different fields populated), we
should ensure that those are not used unless it's in the "top action"
that's trigerred by the event.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
We have GH configured so that manual approval is required for CI runs
triggered by outside contributors. However, because CI is triggered by
the `pull_request_target` event, this setting isn't being honored
(see [1]). This means that an attacker could trivially extracts secrets
by submitting a PR.
This change aims to mititgate this issue by preventing PRs from
triggering CI unless the `ok-to-test` label is set.
Note: For further context, we use the `pull_request_target` event and
manually check out the PR branch because it is the only way to both
access secrets and test incoming code changes.
Fixes: #7163
[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/approving-workflow-runs-from-public-forks
Signed-off-by: Aurélien Bombo <abombo@microsoft.com>
This PR installs kata static tarball on metrics runner
and run launch-times tests.
Fixes: #7049
Signed-off-by: David Esparza <david.esparza.borquez@intel.com>
This gh-workflow prints a simple msg, but is the base for future
PRs that will gradually add the jobs corresponding to the kata
metrics test.
Fixes: #7100
Signed-off-by: David Esparza <david.esparza.borquez@intel.com>
Now that we've added a TDX capable external runner, let's make sure we
also run the basic tests using TDX.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's ensure we're only running this workflow when PRs are opened
against the main branch.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This reverts commit a159ffdba7.
Unfortunately we have to revert the PRs related to the switch done to
using `workflow_run` instead of `pull_request_target`. The reason for
that being that we can only mark jobs as required if they are targetting
PRs.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This reverts commit 3a760a157a.
Unfortunately we have to revert the PRs related to the switch done to
using `workflow_run` instead of `pull_request_target`. The reason for
that being that we can only mark jobs as required if they are targetting
PRs.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This reverts commit 7855b43062.
Unfortunately we have to revert the PRs related to the switch done to
using `workflow_run` instead of `pull_request_target`. The reason for
that being that we can only mark jobs as required if they are targetting
PRs.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
As we're using the `workflow_run` event, the checkout action would
pull the **current target branch** instead of the PR one.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
The way previously used to get the PR's commit sha can only be used with
`pull_request*` kind of events.
Let's adapt it to the `workflow_run` now that we're using it.
With this change we ended up dropping the PR number from the tarball
suffix, as that's not straightforward to get and, to be honest, not a
unique differentiator that would justify the effort.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's make this workflow dependent of the commit message check, and only
start it if the commit message check one passes.
As a side effect, this allows us to run this specific workflow using
secrets, without having to rely on `pull_request_target`.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This is less secure than running the PR on `pull_request`, and will
require using an additional `ok-to-test` label to make sure someone
deliverately ran the actions coming from a forked repo.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's switch to using the `ghcr.io` registry for the k8s CI, as this
will save us some troubles on running the CI with PRs coming from forked
repos.
Fixes: #6587
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This is the very first step to replacing the Jenkins CI, and I've
decided to start with an x86_64 approach only (although easily
expansible for other arches as soon as they're ready to switch), and to
start running our kubernetes tests (now running on AKS).
Fixes: #6541
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
