From: Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Signed push
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:59:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53F7A119.7070704@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1408485987-3590-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com>
On 20.08.2014 00:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed
> came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to
> assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a
> particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call
> the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my
> 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so
> the signature on the object alone is insufficient.
>
> The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to
> place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my
> authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later.
>
> This series introduces a cryptographic assurance for ref updates
> done by "git push" by introducing a mechanism that allows you to
> sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time
> you push. Think of it as working on an axis orthogonal to the
> traditional "signed tags".
What kind of additional benefit do we gain? (i.e. why?)
The described problem, the lacking auditability of what's pushed
at which time, could be worked around like this:
Whenever you do a push, you just tag the latest commit in that branch.
So there would be tags like:
master_2014_08_21
master_2014_08_22
...
maint_2014_08_13
maint_2014_08_21
and so on. Whenever there is no tag at the tip of the branch, we'd
know there is something wrong.
My guess would be usability as tagging so many branches is cumbersome
for a maintainer?
Looking at my made-up workaround again:
That would produce lots of tags. So I could imagine there would also be
lots of push certs. The number of push certs would
roughly scale linear to time passed. May this result in slowness over time?
Does this patch series mean, we'd get another object type (additional to
blobs, commits, tags, trees)?
I did not read the code yet, it's just first thoughts,
so this weigh this input lightly.
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-22 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-19 22:06 [PATCH 00/18] Signed push Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 01/18] receive-pack: do not overallocate command structure Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 02/18] receive-pack: parse feature request a bit earlier Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 03/18] receive-pack: do not reuse old_sha1[] to other things Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 04/18] receive-pack: factor out queueing of command Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 05/18] send-pack: move REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE logic a bit higher Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 06/18] send-pack: refactor decision to send update per ref Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 07/18] send-pack: always send capabilities Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 08/18] send-pack: factor out capability string generation Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 09/18] send-pack: rename "new_refs" to "need_pack_data" Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 10/18] send-pack: refactor inspecting and resetting status and sending commands Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 11/18] send-pack: clarify that cmds_sent is a boolean Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 12/18] gpg-interface: move parse_gpg_output() to where it should be Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 13/18] gpg-interface: move parse_signature() " Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 14/18] pack-protocol doc: typofix for PKT-LINE Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 15/18] the beginning of the signed push Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 2:48 ` brian m. carlson
2014-08-20 6:57 ` Bert Wesarg
2014-08-20 23:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 16/18] receive-pack: GPG-validate push certificates Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 16:56 ` David Turner
2014-08-20 17:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 17:56 ` David Turner
2014-08-20 19:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-21 23:59 ` David Turner
2014-08-22 0:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 17/18] send-pack: send feature request on push-cert packet Junio C Hamano
2014-08-19 22:06 ` [PATCH 18/18] signed push: final protocol update Junio C Hamano
2014-08-21 19:28 ` Shawn Pearce
2014-08-21 23:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-22 3:06 ` Kyle J. McKay
2014-08-22 17:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-22 23:54 ` Shawn Pearce
2014-08-25 17:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-26 17:33 ` Shawn Pearce
2014-08-26 19:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-26 19:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-09-04 23:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-09-05 2:41 ` Shawn Pearce
2014-08-22 4:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-22 0:22 ` David Turner
2014-08-19 23:07 ` [PATCH 00/18] Signed push Duy Nguyen
2014-08-19 23:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 1:19 ` Nico Williams
2014-08-20 2:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 5:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 2:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-20 6:28 ` Nico Williams
2014-08-22 19:59 ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2014-08-22 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-22 20:22 ` Stefan Beller
2014-08-22 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-22 20:38 ` Stefan Beller
2014-08-22 22:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-22 22:51 ` Stefan Beller
2014-08-25 17:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-25 18:38 ` Jason Pyeron
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=53F7A119.7070704@gmail.com \
--to=stefanbeller@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).