Skip to content

feat: No-Scan SOC for binary checker pipeline #5122

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 9, 2025

Conversation

joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor

@joydeep049 joydeep049 commented Jun 6, 2025

Separation of Concerns of the checker pipeline for No Scan Mode.

Currently if we use --no-scan flag in the CLI the language parser pipeline is skipped and the binary checker scan is run without any interaction from the database. I have added a few extra logs in order to visualize everything better, which I will remove in further iterations.

@terriko @anthonyharrison @mastersans

Copy link
Contributor

@terriko terriko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As I said, let's switch most of the logs to be debug instesad of info (just so we don't have a bunch of surprise noise if I manage to cut a release next week) but otherwise I think we're good. It would be nice to have a really simple test along the lines of "does the --no-scan command line option exist and not fail if you use it" to go with this, but it can be a separate PR (maybe a nice easy one for next week while you're working on the language parser stuff). Docs can wait until we're a bit further along into having it work as expected.

@terriko
Copy link
Contributor

terriko commented Jun 6, 2025

Oh! Also, I'll try to get you set up in a group so your CI will run automatically without having to wait for me, so if you get an invite to some github group that starts with cve-bin-tool- that's what that's going to be about. I just need to go figure out what the right group name is and open a ticket with our ops folk.

Copy link
Contributor

@anthonyharrison anthonyharrison left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we update the README with the new option?

Copy link
Contributor

@terriko terriko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm going to get this merged as-is, but I'll set up an issue reminding us that we want a test and a preliminary docs entry (likely explaining what works and what doesn't, such as the fact that it won't operate without cve data yet)

@terriko terriko dismissed anthonyharrison’s stale review June 9, 2025 21:43

Moving docs to separate PR

@terriko terriko merged commit bbae9bf into intel:main Jun 9, 2025
23 of 24 checks passed
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.

3 participants