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
Namespace cache volumes by module #7211
Comments
What does module mean in this context? Each instance/call of a module gets separate cache volumes? What if I have multiple calls to a Go module within the same project and I want to share the module/build cache between them? |
I mean the full canonical address of the module, for example All instances of the same module would share the same volume, as long as they share the same persisted cache volume storage. |
I agree we need to do something like this, but do want to note that the fact that cache volumes can be shared across modules is highly beneficial to performance for many common use cases. E.g. anything that uses Go benefits from sharing a cache volume for downloading deps (and possibly build cache, etc.). Obviously in the choice between security-by-default and performance, security-by-default should win. But in past discussions around all this the idea of cache volumes being tied to modules but still allowing modules to pass their own cache volumes around came up and is still worth considering imo. So say you are writing a module that calls to a bunch of other modules that do "go things"; you should be able to define a cache volume and pass those cache volumes to be used by modules you call.
That seems like one reasonable way of maintaining security by default while still allowing opt-in performance benefits. I'm sure there's other approaches possible too. |
Sure, since there's a cache volume type, it makes sense that you can pass it as argument. I've never seen that done so hadn't even thought about it, but it seems reasonable to me that we don't break it. As long as it doesn't break namespacing of modules (which I don't think it would), then I don't see any problem with that. So these things should all be true:
|
Yeah SGTM, coincidentally everything required to implement enforcement of only using cache volumes you create or are explicitly passed is also what's required to safely pass sockets around (#6747), which I'm working on right now, so should be feasible to implement all this in the very near future. |
Problem
Cache volumes exist in the engine's global namespace: if modules
A
andB
each create a cache volume with idfoo
, they will share read and write access to the same volume, as long as they are run on the same engine. This allows one module to corrupt the data of another module, either accidentally or maliciously.Solution
Namespace the name of cache volumes, so that each module can only read and write to its own cache volumes.
See also
This issue is an up-to-date reboot of #3345
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: