Extend actions/unpinned-tag to analyze composite action metadata (action.yml / action.yaml)

[Copilot]

actions/unpinned-tag currently only reports uses: refs from workflow files because it filters on getEnclosingWorkflow(). This change broadens coverage to also report unpinned refs in composite action metadata (runs.steps[].uses) while preserving existing workflow behavior and message shape.

• Query scope expansion (workflow + composite action)

  • Refactored container-name resolution into a helper predicate that accepts either:
    • UsesStep in a Workflow (existing logic retained: workflow name, else workflow file basename), or
    • UsesStep in a CompositeAction (new logic: composite metadata file basename, e.g. action.yml).
  • Main query now uses this generalized predicate instead of requiring uses.getEnclosingWorkflow() = workflow.

• Behavior preserved for existing workflow alerts

  • Workflow matching and formatting remain unchanged for existing cases.
  • Existing immutable/pinned checks and trusted-owner filtering are untouched.

• CWE-829 test coverage extended

  • Added composite action fixture with:
    • unpinned tag (foo/bar@v2) → alert expected
    • pinned SHA (foo/bar@<40-hex>) → no alert expected
  • Updated UnpinnedActionsTag.expected with the new composite action alert.

private predicate getStepContainerName(UsesStep uses, string name) {
  exists(Workflow workflow | ... )
  or
  exists(CompositeAction action |
    uses.getEnclosingCompositeAction() = action and
    name = action.getLocation().getFile().getBaseName()
  )
}

Warning

Firewall rules blocked me from connecting to one or more addresses (expand for details)

I tried to connect to the following addresses, but was blocked by firewall rules:

• releases.bazel.build
  • Triggering command: /usr/local/lib/node_modules/@bazel/bazelisk/bazelisk-linux_amd64 /usr/local/lib/node_modules/@bazel/bazelisk/bazelisk-linux_amd64 query kind(".*test", //actions/...) (dns block)

If you need me to access, download, or install something from one of these locations, you can either:

• Configure Actions setup steps to set up my environment, which run before the firewall is enabled
• Add the appropriate URLs or hosts to the custom allowlist in this repository's Copilot coding agent settings (admins only)

Original prompt

Implement support for scanning composite action metadata files (action.yml / action.yaml) in the actions/unpinned-tag CodeQL query so that unpinned action refs used in composite actions are reported.

Context:

• Current query: actions/ql/src/Security/CWE-829/UnpinnedActionsTag.ql in github/codeql requires uses.getEnclosingWorkflow() = workflow, so it only reports workflow uses steps.
• Support escalation issue: github/codeql-team#4594 requests the rule also evaluate composite actions’ metadata.

Requirements:

1. Update the query (and/or shared library predicates) so that uses: references inside composite action metadata files are included.
   • Composite actions are defined in action.yml / action.yaml and contain runs.steps[].uses.
   • Ensure both workflow steps and composite action steps are analyzed.
2. Preserve existing behavior for workflows and ensure message formatting remains reasonable.
   • Ideally include a “name” for the container: for workflows use workflow name/file base name; for composite actions use something like the file base name (action.yml) or action name: if present.
3. Add/extend tests under actions/ql/test/... to cover:
   • A workflow file with an unpinned tag should still alert.
   • A composite action metadata file with an unpinned tag should now alert.
   • A pinned SHA should not alert.
4. Run/adjust any query suite expected files or baselines if needed.

Notes:

• Prefer using existing Actions AST classes. Look for CompositeAction or UsesStep context APIs.
• If needed, refactor by introducing a helper predicate (e.g., uses.getEnclosingWorkflow() OR uses.getEnclosingCompositeAction()), or generalizing to a shared “step container”.

Repository: github/codeql

The following is the prior conversation context from the user's chat exploration (may be truncated):

User: can you answer the question on the support escalation? use https://github.com/github/semmle-code and https://github.com/github/codeql-action codebases to investigate

Assistant: This looks like expected behavior of the current actions/unpinned-tag query: it’s (effectively) a workflow-only check today, so it will flag uses: owner/repo@tag inside .github/workflows/*.yml|*.yaml, but it won’t (currently) evaluate composite action metadata (action.yml / action.yaml) for runs.steps[].uses. Your repro matches that gap.

What I found from the two codebases you asked me to use

1) github/semmle-code: the Actions “surface” being targeted is workflows

In semmle-code there’s explicit “Actions workflow” handling that’s scoped to .github/workflows (even in internal tooling). For example, the repo’s actionlint genrule only targets .github/workflows/*.yml and doesn’t mention action.yml at all:

• build uses .github/workflows/*.yml as the input globs for the GitHub Actions workflow linting target.
  (See build around the actionlint genrule.)
  Source: https://github.com/github/semmle-code/blob/4b5f72d62dadeb9ca073d12cadefd41c0ebc5472/build#L827-L871

That doesn’t prove the CodeQL query itself filters to workflows, but it’s consistent with what you’re seeing: “Actions language” checks in this repo historically center on workflow files, not composite-action metadata.

Also: I attempted to locate UnpinnedActionsTag.ql in github/semmle-code via code search and didn’t get a hit in this repo snapshot, so I can’t point at the exact ql/actions/.../UnpinnedActionsTag.ql implementation here. (The issue links to github/codeql, not semmle-code, which likely explains the mismatch.)

2) github/codeql-action: it runs CodeQL CLI, but it doesn’t add special handling for composite action metadata

From codeql-action, the “analyze” step orchestrates database finalization and then runs queries (runQueries(...)). Nothing I found suggests it separately enumerates “workflow vs action metadata” files itself; it delegates that to the CodeQL CLI and the selected query packs/suites.

• src/analyze-action.ts calls runQueries(...) to execute the configured queries/packs.
  Source: https://github.com/github/codeql-action/blob/597e12aa85c95194dbf8a83c0e3a649444a119bc/src/analyze-action.ts#L325-L355

So: if the query pack for the actions language doesn’t model action.yml, codeql-action won’t “pick it up” magically.

---

Direct answer to the escalation question (“is this expected?”)

Yes, this is expected given the current implementation/coverage of the rule: it is designed (or at least currently implemented) to analyze workflow files and doesn’t currently treat composite action metadata (action.yml/action.yaml) as part of the analyzed surface for this query. That means a composite action can bypass the check today by placing uses: owner/repo@tag inside runs.steps in the action metadata file.

Recommendation / what Engineering should do next

1. Confirm intended scope: If the goal of `actions/unpinned...

This pull request was created from Copilot chat.