Skip to content

Clarify operator responsibility for build inputs - #13054

Open
slawekjaranowski wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
slawekjaranowski:docs/clarify-operator-input-responsibilities
Open

Clarify operator responsibility for build inputs#13054
slawekjaranowski wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
slawekjaranowski:docs/clarify-operator-input-responsibilities

Conversation

@slawekjaranowski

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

  • document command-line arguments and system properties as trusted invocation inputs
  • document unit and integration test source as trusted code executed during the build
  • state the operator responsibility for supplied build inputs

Testing

  • Not run (documentation-only change)

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@slawekjaranowski slawekjaranowski added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Sep 5, 2026

@gnodet gnodet left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Solid documentation improvement. The three additions explicitly cover inputs that were previously only implicitly trusted in the threat model:

  1. CLI args / system properties — correct placement in the trust table; these are clearly operator-supplied.
  2. Test source code — making this explicit is useful given that §9 already states arbitrary code execution is by-design, but the trust table didn't previously enumerate test code as a distinct trusted input.
  3. General responsibility bullet in §10 — good framing as the lead-in for the specific operator responsibilities that follow.

All three are factually consistent with the existing model, use the correct table format, and reference the right provenance tags (*(inferred, Q5)*).

This review was generated by an AI agent, Hermès on behalf of @gnodet.

@slachiewicz
slachiewicz removed their request for review September 6, 2026 19:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants