4 ms·
What about integrating (and encouraging users to opt into) peer-to-peer distribution? If I understand correctly, this would work for Guix and Nix. I'm not usin
by maxeonyx 6y ago
What about integrating (and encouraging users to opt into) peer-to-peer distribution? If I understand correctly, this would work for Guix and Nix.
I'm not using Guix, but if I was I would be happy to do this. I have no data cap on my home internet, and my PC is usually on.
- rekado 6y agoThere was early work on using IPFS as a substitute distribution mechanism, but the API changed and nobody has picked up the existing work yet. But I agree that this would be a great feature and I hope someone will feel motivated to pick up and assemble the pieces.
- thom 6y agoWhat are the security implications of this?
- mbakke 6y agoThe implementation requires that you have at least one authorized substitute server advertising the same hash. In simplified terms, if ci.guix.gnu.org advertises a substitute for /gnu/store/abc123-foo, with the checksum "xyz789" (and the cryptographic signature of that advertisement checks out), your daemon can safely download that file over P2P.
- thom 6y agoAh, I think I'm misunderstanding the intent here. Clearly P2P distribution of checksummed binaries can be safe, I was just wondering if there were a solution to the build farm being behind. It seems like you can't really trust the first build of any artifact unless it comes from a central source.
- mbakke 6y agoThere have been discussions of an "N of P" distribution, i.e. if 80% of available peers (or substitute servers) advertise the same build result, then treat it as safe. I expect that both will be implemented, and the choice left up to the user.
- thom 6y agoUnless I'm massively underestimating the number of Guix users, that seems quite easy to exploit.