From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH +warn] Implement https public key pinning Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:22:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20160216012210.GB11961@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87y4amcby5.fsf@mitoraj.siccegge.de> <20160215140422.GA1747@mitoraj.siccegge.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Christoph Egger , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 16 02:22:19 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aVULJ-0002IC-HE for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:22:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751759AbcBPBWO (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:22:14 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:42691 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751491AbcBPBWN (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:22:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 12679 invoked by uid 102); 16 Feb 2016 01:22:13 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:22:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 15143 invoked by uid 107); 16 Feb 2016 01:22:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:22:18 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:22:11 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:25:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thanks. This, when applied on top of 2.7.1, however seems to break > at least t5541 and t5551. Hrm. I cannot see how the new code can possibly do anything unless http.pinnedpubkey is set, and our tests don't do that. Neither t5541 nor t5551 fails for me with the patch on top of v2.7.1 (or current "pu", for that matter). What does the failure look like? -Peff