[arch-dev-public] pacman root key issue with gnupg-2.1
bisson at archlinux.org
Sun Dec 7 20:44:22 UTC 2014
[2014-12-07 21:27:39 +1000] Allan McRae:
> On 05/12/14 12:50, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> > [2014-12-01 16:31:28 -1000] Gaetan Bisson:
> >> Right. It seems porting the pacman keyring from pre-2.1 to 2.1
> >> mishandles the no-password case: signing anything with the resulting
> >> master key fails. We should be able to fix that by manually fiddling
> >> with the keyring, but I haven't found how yet.
> >> As you point out, recreating a fresh keyring with gnupg-2.1 is the
> >> easiest solution, though it will inconvenience users that have already
> >> imported and signed keys locally. I suggest we post a news item advising
> >> all users to do that.
> > How about the following news announcement:
> > The upgrade to gnupg-2.1 tampered with the pacman keyring in a
> > way that rendered the local master key unable to sign other
> > keys. This is only an issue if you ever intend to customize your
> > pacman keyring. We nevertheless recommend all users regenerate a
> > fresh keyring using:
> > sudo pacman -Syu
> > sudo rm -fr /etc/pacman.d/gnupg
> > sudo pacman-key --init
> > sudo pacman-key --populate archlinux
> > [End of the announcement.]
> > Additionally, to avoid future issues with pacman-key communication
> > passphrases to gnupg, I suggest updating our pacman package with:
> > - "pinentry-mode loopback" in /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/gpg.conf
> > - "allow-loopback-pinentry" in /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/gpg-agent.conf
> > See: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1480570#p1480570
> As far as I can tell, those options are just supposed to allow gpg to
> work without a pinentry. But we should never require a password to be
> entered, so it does not matter whether the pinentry is available or not.
> So I am missing the reason to add this.
Sure. That's just a precaution in case future versions of gnupg require
pinentry even for empty passwords. But as you say that's unneeded now.
I'll post the announcement later today if no one has further comments.
More information about the arch-dev-public