Skip to content

chore: update security scanning workflows - #360

Open
haribabug wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
add-security-scanning-update
Open

haribabug wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
add-security-scanning-update

Conversation

@haribabug

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Security Scanning Workflows — Update

This PR syncs the security scanning configuration with the latest version from
ROCm/rocm-repo-template.

The original "chore: add security scanning workflows" PR for this repository has already been merged;
this follow-up brings the following file(s) back in line with the template:

  • .github/workflows/pr-security-scan.yml
  • .github/workflows/weekly-security-scan.yml
  • .github/dependabot.yml
  • .github/scan_tools_configs/bandit.yml
  • .github/scan_tools_configs/gitleaks.toml
  • .github/scan_tools_configs/trivy.yml
  • .github/scan_tools_configs/zizmor.yml

Why

The template evolved after the initial rollout. This keeps this repository aligned
with the ROCm GitHub Organization Security Baseline.


For more details, refer ROCm GitHub Org Security Controls Baseline Architecture

Support/Questions: Teams Channel ROCm Security Discussions

Syncs 7 security scanning file(s) with the latest version
from ROCm/rocm-repo-template.
@haribabug
haribabug requested a review from a team as a code owner October 14, 2026 15:37
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Security scan found no critical or high findings on lines changed by this pull request (coverage incomplete)

Coverage was incomplete:

  • Security scan / Security scanners concluded with failure.

View the security scan run for complete reports.

“New” means the finding is located in a changed file on an added or modified line; it is not a base-versus-head findings delta.

@mch

mch commented Oct 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@haribabug can you comment on why the trivy and zizmor scans are failing?

Comment thread .github/dependabot.yml
Comment on lines -8 to -10
- package-ecosystem: "pip" # See documentation for possible values
directory: "/docs/sphinx" # Location of package manifests
open-pull-requests-limit: 10

@mch mch Oct 14, 2026 •

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.

Shouldn't we keep this updater? It's what's going to address the trivy findings. Keep it together with the labels that were also deleted below.

@mch mch 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.

I think the CodeQL config that is already in this repo should be removed in favour of the baseline, and the findings that are causing failures should be addressed before merging this.

permissions:
contents: read
security-events: write
uses: ROCm/rocm-security-gh/.github/workflows/security-baseline.yml@228e62369c5d8b677215f8a112ea0c8e8119c58f # v1.0.6

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.

The baseline called here brings its own CodeQL with it: security-baseline.yml@228e623 contains a codeql: job that calls ROCm/rocm-security-gh/.github/workflows/codeql.yml, which runs codeql-action/analyze with category: "/language:${{ matrix.language }}". With scan_mode: all on this workflow that resolves to /language:c-cpp, which is exactly the category the existing .github/workflows/codeql.yml in this repo uploads for the same ref. Two analyses publishing the same category against the same ref replace one another, so alerts are likely to flap depending on which run finished last, and the baseline's build-mode: none extraction sees a different amount of C/C++ than the current manual cmake/make build does. That existing workflow is also the source of 4 of the 13 HIGH zizmor findings in this PR's own run (unpinned actions/checkout@v4, github/codeql-action/*@v3, and the unpinned rocm/dev-ubuntu-22.04:latest container).

I think it would be better to drop .github/workflows/codeql.yml as part of this PR and let the baseline own CodeQL, after confirming build-mode: none gives comparable C/C++ coverage and passing codeql_config_path if any scoping from the old workflow needs preserving.

@mch mch 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.

Accidently approved

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.

2 participants