Add cosigning and provenance attestation to image builds

[averevki]

Summary

• Sign all container images (operator, bundle, catalog) with cosign (https://github.com/sigstore/cosign) keyless
  signing using the GitHub OIDC identity
• Enable SLSA build provenance for Docker Buildx workflows (provenance: true)
• New actions are pinned by commit SHA using ratchet (https://github.com/sethvargo/ratchet) format comments, consistent with action pinning being added in Pin github action versions with Ratchet #330

Part of the work on Kuadrant/kuadrant-operator#2038

Context

This improves the Signed-Releases (https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/blob/main/docs/checks.md#signed-releases) check from the OpenSSF Scorecard (https://scorecard.dev/). Merging this should bring this section score from current 0 to 10.

Verification

Image builds cosigning and attestation was verified with the kuadrant-operator image builds (Kuadrant/kuadrant-operator#2073), the successful run of which can be found here, with the images pushed here.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@averevki, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 40 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 0f45a345-667b-4dd8-bb05-db60c1c57be5

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 72111de and 0cdefc8.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• .github/workflows/build-images-base.yaml
• .github/workflows/build-images-branches.yaml
• .github/workflows/build-images-for-tag-release.yaml
• .github/workflows/build-images-main.yaml
• .github/workflows/build-images-nightly.yaml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch builds-cosigning-and-provenance

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.20%. Comparing base (72111de) to head (0cdefc8).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #333   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   57.20%   57.20%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines        1458     1458           
=======================================
  Hits          834      834           
  Misses        529      529           
  Partials       95       95           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	57.20% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[guicassolato]

I see the image manifest now has 4 images with "unknown/unknown" os/arch. Is that expected?

[averevki]

It is expected, this is how docker buildx (provenance: true) stores the attestations for each architecture, it embeds it directly into the image.

skopeo inspect docker://quay.io/kuadrant/authorino-operator:builds-cosigning-and-provenance --raw | jq
{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.index.v1+json",
  "manifests": [
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:48fafa861600bf99a2a8ea37db13246b1f07e4d7f39a6c34e66bd35e955b7ab1",
      "size": 675,
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "amd64",
        "os": "linux"
      }
    },
    ....
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:d765ba4bc27704006d58a8d4803c4a70ec34f07cdd5bc259a45582f280640442",
      "size": 565,
      "annotations": {
        "vnd.docker.reference.digest": "sha256:48fafa861600bf99a2a8ea37db13246b1f07e4d7f39a6c34e66bd35e955b7ab1",
        "vnd.docker.reference.type": "attestation-manifest"
      },
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "unknown",
        "os": "unknown"
      }
    },
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:b87517d08bd4e0e1abd942c51d79bc4a581dd1a4166c46ac21bc4154d50c0428",
      "size": 565,
      "annotations": {
        "vnd.docker.reference.digest": "sha256:93475356d6233d4aefda6b40d1c54218c90803d1bd5779ee32915b6a5861bbab",
        "vnd.docker.reference.type": "attestation-manifest"
      },
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "unknown",
        "os": "unknown"
      }
    },
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:c6e52b009e38c8b0e7ce2327816c0861d71f88d8491fc62893c61b094396ce69",
      "size": 565,
      "annotations": {
        "vnd.docker.reference.digest": "sha256:7ccb60efcc4f72abcaab99a9bf9feb35d8003024ef1f45f75d86edf50e29cf7f",
        "vnd.docker.reference.type": "attestation-manifest"
      },
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "unknown",
        "os": "unknown"
      }
    },
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:63384503fdf70a4f0f8ee1f46592320bca77cf8c5aa7a21f41ca26095da777d1",
      "size": 565,
      "annotations": {
        "vnd.docker.reference.digest": "sha256:c7d538b19d4b1d9765eb5861088ad40d7d76b5dd8d84dd7f69c5a3d364788534",
        "vnd.docker.reference.type": "attestation-manifest"
      },
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "unknown",
        "os": "unknown"
      }
    }
  ]
}

Multi-arch images are built a bit differently in the authorino repo, so in there it uses a dedicated github action to generate the provenance instead, which stores provenance as a separate OCI artifact in the registry.

Both ways achieve the same goal of storing the provenance, question is if we want to have the way the attestations are stored unified between the repos. If yes, it would require changing the process images are build in some projects. Personally, I would prefer attestations to be embedded into the image instead of creating an another artifact, to not trash the image registry.

[guicassolato]

Not a fun of the separate artefacts either.