fix(coserv): expiry + config refactor#420
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
setrofim
commented
May 27, 2026
setrofim
commented
- Update to v0.2.1 of corim-store that implements MaxExpiry, which is used when CoRIMs do not specify validity, and serves as a maximum limit on expiry when they do.
- In order allow configuration of MaxExpiry, refactor how configuration for CoSERV is handled inside VTS:
- Create CoservContext which contains configuration for CoSERVService prior to its creation, and also contains the signer (which is not part of the service, but is related to it).
- Configuration for the context is taken from "coserv" section of config files (the same as the front-end: all coserv-related configuration is now in the same place in the config tree). Configuration for the signer is moved to "signer" sub-section under it.
- FallbackAuthority for the service is now configured based on the signer's public key, rather than being hard-coded to a nonsense value.
- Update to v0.2.1 of corim-store that implements MaxExpiry, which is
used when CoRIMs do not specify validity, and serves as a maximum
limit on expiry when they do.
- In order allow configuration of MaxExpiry, refactor how configuration
for CoSERV is handled inside VTS:
- Create CoservContext which contains configuration for CoSERVService
prior to its creation, and also contains the signer (which is not
part of the service, but is related to it).
- Configuration for the context is taken from "coserv" section of
config files (the same as the front-end: all coserv-related
configuration is now in the same place in the config tree).
Configuration for the signer is moved to "signer" sub-section under
it.
- FallbackAuthority for the service is now configured based on the
signer's public key, rather than being hard-coded to a nonsense value.
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimov <sergei.trofimov@arm.com>
setrofim
force-pushed
the
setrofim/coserv-expiry
branch
from
72a4226 to
7148c5b
Compare
Contributor
thomas-fossati
left a comment
thomas-fossati
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but I don’t get why we need to reimplement the time.Duration parsing logics.
thomas-fossati
approved these changes
May 28, 2026
Contributor
thomas-fossati
left a comment
thomas-fossati
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While I am not entirely convinced that the reimplementation of the Duration parser is warranted, as the improvement in readability does not seem sufficient to justify the duplication of core library code, I can live with that.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.