Skip to content

ci: Add AI security review workflow - #3280

Merged
WesleyRosenblum merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
WesleyRosenblum/securityreviewer
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

ci: Add AI security review workflow#3280
WesleyRosenblum merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
WesleyRosenblum/securityreviewer

Conversation

@WesleyRosenblum

@WesleyRosenblum WesleyRosenblum commented Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Release Summary:

Resolved issues:

Description of changes:

Adds a dedicated pull_request_target workflow for AI-assisted security review. Reviews run against pinned pull request commits in CodeBuild, require maintainer approval for external contributors, publish a commit-specific security-review / report status, and keep centralized pull request lifecycle metadata current.

Call-outs:

  • A valid blocking review completes the workflow successfully and publishes a failed report status.

Testing:

  • cargo build --workspace
  • Shell syntax checks for all new scripts
  • Workflow YAML parsing
  • git diff --check
  • ./scripts/typos
  • ./scripts/copyright_check
  • Local fake AWS/GitHub coverage for pass, blocking, infrastructure failure, polling, stale approval, closure tracking, hostile metadata, status publication, and comments

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

Add a trusted pull_request_target workflow that runs pinned CodeBuild security reviews for pull requests. Gate external contributors through GitHub environment approval, publish commit-specific report status, and track closed pull requests without changing quic-attack.
@WesleyRosenblum
WesleyRosenblum marked this pull request as ready for review August 27, 2026 23:26
@WesleyRosenblum
WesleyRosenblum requested a review from a team as a code owner August 27, 2026 23:26

jobs:
# Decide whether an open PR can run immediately or needs approval.
authorize:

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.

To add this kind of workflow, I think testing this whole PR before merging it will be necessary, and I think that kind of testing is lacking based on the PR description.

Since this PR requires AWS credentials, I don't think testing it on fork is a good idea. Can we test it on upstream s2n-quic repo in a different branch other than the main branch?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Comment thread codebuild/bin/run_security_review.sh
Comment thread .github/workflows/security-review.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/scripts/security-review-comment.sh Outdated
Comment thread .github/scripts/security-review-workflow.sh
Limit automatic reviews to authors with write access and remove the redundant latest-result summary from report history.
Run the security review workflow only for the controlled upstream child branch so the GitHub and CodeBuild integration can be validated before merge.
Remove the controlled child-PR integration path after capturing the pre-merge workflow and CodeBuild failure evidence.
Run the deployed credential fix through the controlled upstream GitHub Actions and CodeBuild integration path.
Remove the controlled child-PR path after the deployed credential fix passed end-to-end validation.

@boquan-fang boquan-fang 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.

This PR looks good with testing. We should continuously monitor the effect of this workflow once it is merged in.

@WesleyRosenblum
WesleyRosenblum enabled auto-merge (squash) September 2, 2026 18:53
@WesleyRosenblum
WesleyRosenblum merged commit 1349770 into main Sep 3, 2026
135 of 136 checks passed
@WesleyRosenblum
WesleyRosenblum deleted the WesleyRosenblum/securityreviewer branch September 3, 2026 03:18
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