Skip to content

AA: bring initdata validation logic to Initdata validator#1406

Open
Xynnn007 wants to merge 2 commits into
confidential-containers:mainfrom
Xynnn007:initdata-validator
Open

AA: bring initdata validation logic to Initdata validator#1406
Xynnn007 wants to merge 2 commits into
confidential-containers:mainfrom
Xynnn007:initdata-validator

Conversation

@Xynnn007
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 commented Apr 8, 2026

  1. delete initdata checking logic from AA init logic
  2. Add initdata-validator
  3. Add initdata-validator publishment CI pipeline

@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 8, 2026 07:58
@fitzthum
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

fitzthum commented Apr 8, 2026

Seems like this is similar to what @burgerdev and @Apokleos have worked on for decoupling

@Xynnn007
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Xynnn007 commented Apr 9, 2026

Seems like this is similar to what @burgerdev and @Apokleos have worked on for decoupling

Yes. Here's the newest thread - if you're interested (I'm sure you must be : ) ) ptl

kata-containers/kata-containers#11532 (comment)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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.

This looks good. My one question is whether we should drop the first commit for now so that we have a smoother transition. Otherwise, as soon as we merge this, we will need to get everything else in place before we can bump gc. Maybe we keep existing functionality for now and remove it once we are actually using the new flow.

@Xynnn007
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

This looks good. My one question is whether we should drop the first commit for now so that we have a smoother transition. Otherwise, as soon as we merge this, we will need to get everything else in place before we can bump gc. Maybe we keep existing functionality for now and remove it once we are actually using the new flow.

Good point. Let me make this as draft and I will take a test with the whole stack. If it works, I will turn it back to ready

@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 marked this pull request as draft April 10, 2026 23:33
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@burgerdev burgerdev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for working on this! I think we will need to have both AA as validator and the additional validator binary for a transition period.

@Xynnn007
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Thanks for working on this! I think we will need to have both AA as validator and the additional validator binary for a transition period.

in my original plan, we can do the whole change togetherly without any mid-state. To achieve this aim, I will take the whole stack with also @Apokleos 's PR. This way we can avoid some clean up jobs - actually we will not use attestation-agent for initdata validation anymore. wdyt?

@burgerdev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Xynnn007, we're following this plan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEE6p0qL61MUCNQw3fh9dhpFeN-Uv4d4AuOBp4ftK34/edit?usp=sharing. We'll need the validator for phase 1, but can only skip processing in AA in phase 3. The reason for the phased introduction is to reduce review burden on Kata side and general safety of these changes.

Signed-off-by: Xynnn007 <xynnn@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Xynnn007 <xynnn@linux.alibaba.com>
@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 force-pushed the initdata-validator branch from cbd8035 to 9872ea2 Compare April 16, 2026 06:28
@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 marked this pull request as ready for review April 16, 2026 06:50
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