Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

I haven't refreshed my mind on the "potential security issue", but from my quick look— I think we only check out the fork PR at the given comment time; which is assumed to verified/checked by the team member at comment time.

On the other hand, I'm not super opposed to deleting this, but if so, we should also delete the logic in yarn benchmark prepare-for-github-action

The problem is subtle, but it lies here:

      - uses: alessbell/pull-request-comment-branch@aad01d65d6982b8eacabed5e9a684cd8ceb98da6 # v1.1
        id: comment-branch

      - uses: actions/checkout@11bd71901bbe5b1630ceea73d27597364c9af683 # v4.2.2
        with:
          # Specify repository as the PR branch might be from a fork.
          repository: ${{steps.comment-branch.outputs.head_owner}}/${{steps.comment-branch.outputs.head_repo}}
          # Checkout the pull request and assume it being trusted given we've checked
          # that the action was triggered by a team member.
          ref: ${{steps.comment-branch.outputs.head_ref}}

Essentially there is a race condition due to the multi-second delay between when the trusted user creates the comment and the benchmark workflow starts running. As a result, the workflow will check out the latest code from whatever the PR head branch is of the fork repo.

Now, realistically this will not get exploited (which is why I am simply making a PR to remove the workflow) because the workflow has hasn't been used in over a year. I'll update my PR to remove the associated benchmark logic.

Can you please rebase your PR ?

Seeing no activity on this PR, I'm going to close it. Feel free to open a new PR if you'd like to land this change.

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

_{This action has been performed automatically by a bot.}