Skip to content
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

Build the insecure flavour of Oak Functions container #5006

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 8, 2024

Conversation

andrisaar
Copy link
Collaborator

This is similar to what we have with the Restricted Kernel version, except a little bit more complicated as we need a whole second container.

(I considered bundling both binaries into one container, but decided against it as we want the choice be explicit.)

Ref b/331866772

oak_functions_containers_app/Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oak_functions_containers_container/build_container_bundle Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
]
# Feature allow_sensitive_logging is not actually used in the code. It is only used as a
# required feature to differentiate between the two binaries.
allow_sensitive_logging = []
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am pretty sure this will bite us back at some point, since features are supposed to be allowed to co-exist (see https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html#mutually-exclusive-features ).

Instead personally I would suggest creating two main.rs files (one per binary) and propagating a const / generic / something all the way down from there.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll leave the cleanup to follow-up PRs :)

That'd apply to the Restricted Kernel version as well.

@andrisaar andrisaar enabled auto-merge (rebase) April 8, 2024 17:36
@andrisaar andrisaar merged commit 48e071c into project-oak:main Apr 8, 2024
24 checks passed
@andrisaar andrisaar deleted the insecure branch April 8, 2024 17:41
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.

4 participants