Bug 1858006 - RFE: Import certificates to rpmdb on the installed system
Summary: RFE: Import certificates to rpmdb on the installed system
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: anaconda
Version: 32
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vladimír Slávik
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 748320 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: fidelitas-ex-nihilo F10Target
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-07-16 20:18 UTC by Vladimír Slávik
Modified: 2021-04-30 07:12 UTC (History)
17 users (show)

Fixed In Version: anaconda-34.8-1
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-04-30 07:12:14 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 748320 0 unspecified CLOSED automatically import default GPG keys 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 748320

Description Vladimír Slávik 2020-07-16 20:18:38 UTC
Description of problem:




Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Fedora 32
2. $ sudo bash
3. # dnf download <package>
4. # rpm -K <package>
5. # dnf install <anything>
6. # rpm -K <package>


Actual results:
First run of rpm reports that digest SIGNATURES NOT OK, while second run with the very same command and file reports digest signatures OK.


Expected results:
Signatures consistently reported OK or not.

Additional info:
- Works for any package.
- It's the act of dnf install that fixes the problem, so you can install anything!
- Found while investigating bug 1853665.

Comment 1 Vladimír Slávik 2020-07-16 20:20:30 UTC
Sorry, forgot to fill in the template.

Version: rpm-4.15.1-2.fc32.1.x86_64
Description: SSIA ;-)

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2020-08-03 08:42:57 UTC
The signature verification fails because the public key is not available, "dnf install" imports the key as a part of the process which is why it works afterwards.

Whether distro keys are imported on system install or not is not rpm's decision at all (it never imports anything on its own), reassigning to anaconda.

Comment 3 Vladimír Slávik 2020-08-04 10:33:18 UTC
Panu, thanks for the explanation. I asked around and I'm told this is a duplicate of some ancient bug about the same broad issue, but I can't find that bug. So I can't close this one as a duplicate, but I would.

Comment 4 Panu Matilainen 2020-08-04 10:59:09 UTC
That probably refers to bug 998, but it's not quite the same: it would be possible to verify the signatures during installation without importing the keys to rpmdb (as it would also be possible to import the keys but not actually check).

Comment 5 Vladimír Slávik 2020-08-06 13:21:27 UTC
Changing description to reflect better what this really is, relative to how things are now.

(If that's wrong, let's change it more...)

Comment 6 Vladimír Slávik 2020-09-15 08:12:58 UTC
PR with basic idea - probably needs changing into an internal task...

https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/2855

Comment 7 Vendula Poncova 2020-09-15 09:40:17 UTC
Looks like a duplicate of the bug 748320.

Comment 8 Vladimír Slávik 2020-10-02 13:31:52 UTC
PR changed and merged...

Comment 9 Vladimír Slávik 2020-10-02 13:37:13 UTC
*** Bug 748320 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10 Georg Sauthoff 2020-10-14 20:49:13 UTC
(In reply to Panu Matilainen from comment #4)
> That probably refers to bug 998, but it's not quite the same: it would be
> possible to verify the signatures during installation without importing the
> keys to rpmdb (as it would also be possible to import the keys but not
> actually check).

This comment makes me nervous - I hope that signatures are already verified during installation!?

Comment 11 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 16:33:46 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 12 Kamil Páral 2021-04-30 07:12:14 UTC
Seems fixed? Closing.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.