From: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
To: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Cc: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] receive-pack: verify push options in cert
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 17:06:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170506000608.GD55152@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79ka4vG1yd1JtK9bDBjWPUG0UCPMvw2XQUsfX_e_xFCpVLA@mail.gmail.com>
On 05/05, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
> > In commit f6a4e61 ("push: accept push options", 2016-07-14), send-pack
> > was taught to include push options both within the signed cert (if the
> > push is a signed push) and outside the signed cert; however,
> > receive-pack ignores push options within the cert, only handling push
> > options outside the cert.
> >
> > Teach receive-pack, in the case that push options are provided for a
> > signed push, to verify that the push options both within the cert and
> > outside the cert are consistent, and to provide the results of that
> > verification to the receive hooks as an environment variable (just like
> > it currently does for the nonce verification).
> >
> > This sets in stone the requirement that send-pack redundantly send its
> > push options in 2 places, but I think that this is better than the
> > alternatives. Sending push options only within the cert is
> > backwards-incompatible with existing Git servers (which read push
> > options only from outside the cert), and sending push options only
> > outside the cert means that the push options are not signed for.
>
> As the combination of push certs and push options are broken
> (at least when using JGit as well, which are used in Gerrit
> installations), I would not feel too bad about actually going
> the backwards-incompatible way.
yeah just think of the bits that could be saved!
But in all seriousness, I'd agree that doing the backwards-incompatible
way would be cleaner in the longer run (esp since they are broken
currently).
--
Brandon Williams
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-06 0:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-05 23:46 [PATCH 0/3] Clarify interaction between signed pushes and push options Jonathan Tan
2017-05-05 23:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] docs: correct receive.advertisePushOptions default Jonathan Tan
2017-05-05 23:50 ` Brandon Williams
2017-05-05 23:53 ` Stefan Beller
2017-05-05 23:58 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-05-05 23:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] receive-pack: verify push options in cert Jonathan Tan
2017-05-06 0:02 ` Stefan Beller
2017-05-06 0:06 ` Brandon Williams [this message]
2017-05-06 0:20 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-05-06 0:10 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-05-05 23:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] protocol docs: explain receive-pack push options Jonathan Tan
2017-05-06 0:10 ` Stefan Beller
2017-05-06 0:26 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-05-08 21:27 ` Jonathan Tan
2017-05-08 5:44 ` [PATCH 0/3] Clarify interaction between signed pushes and " Junio C Hamano
2017-05-08 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Jonathan Tan
2017-05-08 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] docs: correct receive.advertisePushOptions default Jonathan Tan
2017-05-08 21:33 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] receive-pack: verify push options in cert Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 3:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-09 3:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-09 16:45 ` [PATCH] fixup! use perl instead of sed Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 17:00 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-09 19:23 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Clarify interaction between signed pushes and push options Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 19:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] docs: correct receive.advertisePushOptions default Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 19:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] receive-pack: verify push options in cert Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 21:01 ` [PATCH v3] fixup! don't use perl -i because it's not portable Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 20:43 ` [PATCH] fixup! use perl instead of sed Johannes Sixt
2017-05-09 21:04 ` Jonathan Tan
2017-05-09 21:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-09 22:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-09 23:44 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170506000608.GD55152@google.com \
--to=bmwill@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=sbeller@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.