| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
A few tests that tried to verify the contents of push certificates
did not use 'git rev-parse' to formulate the line to look for in
the certificate correctly.
* js/t5534-rev-parse-gives-multi-line-output-fix:
t5534: fix misleading grep invocation
|
|
It seems to be a little-known feature of `grep` (and it certainly came
as a surprise to this here developer who believed to know the Unix tools
pretty well) that multiple patterns can be passed in the same
command-line argument simply by separating them by newlines. Watch, and
learn:
$ printf '1\n2\n3\n' | grep "$(printf '1\n3\n')"
1
3
That behavior also extends to patterns passed via `-e`, and it is not
modified by passing the option `-E` (but trying this with -P issues the
error "grep: the -P option only supports a single pattern").
It seems that there are more old Unix hands who are surprised by this
behavior, as grep invocations of the form
grep "$(git rev-parse A B) C" file
were introduced in a85b377d041 (push: the beginning of "git push
--signed", 2014-09-12), and later faithfully copy-edited in b9459019bbb
(push: heed user.signingkey for signed pushes, 2014-10-22).
Please note that the output of `git rev-parse A B` separates the object
IDs via *newlines*, not via spaces, and those newlines are preserved
because the interpolation is enclosed in double quotes.
As a consequence, these tests try to validate that the file contains
either A's object ID, or B's object ID followed by C, or both. Clearly,
however, what the test wanted to see is that there is a line that
contains all of them.
This is clearly unintended, and the grep invocations in question really
match too many lines.
Fix the test by avoiding the newlines in the patterns.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
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.
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.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
push --signed promises to take user.signingkey as the signing key but
fails to read the config.
Make it do so.
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In order to prevent a valid push certificate for pushing into an
repository from getting replayed in a different push operation, send
a nonce string from the receive-pack process and have the signer
include it in the push certificate. The receiving end uses an HMAC
hash of the path to the repository it serves and the current time
stamp, hashed with a secret seed (the secret seed does not have to
be per-repository but can be defined in /etc/gitconfig) to generate
the nonce, in order to ensure that a random third party cannot forge
a nonce that looks like it originated from it.
The original nonce is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE for the hooks
to examine and match against the value on the "nonce" header in the
certificate to notice a replay, but returned "nonce" header in the
push certificate is examined by receive-pack and the result is
exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS, whose value would be "OK"
if the nonce recorded in the certificate matches what we expect, so
that the hooks can more easily check.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
We would want to update the interim protocol so that we do not send
the usual update commands when the push certificate feature is in
use, as the same information is in the certificate. Once that
happens, the push-cert packet may become the only protocol command,
but then there is no packet to put the feature request behind, like
we always did.
As we have prepared the receiving end that understands the push-cert
feature to accept the feature request on the first protocol packet
(other than "shallow ", which was an unfortunate historical mistake
that has to come before everything else), we can give the feature
request on the push-cert packet instead of the first update protocol
packet, in preparation for the next step to actually update to the
final protocol.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Reusing the GPG signature check helpers we already have, verify
the signature in receive-pack and give the results to the hooks
via GIT_PUSH_CERT_{SIGNER,KEY,STATUS} environment variables.
Policy decisions, such as accepting or rejecting a good signature by
a key that is not fully trusted, is left to the hook and kept
outside of the core.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
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.
Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate"
(for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that
what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point
at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for
ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an
orthogonal axis.
The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this:
1. You push out your work with "git push --signed".
2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual,
together with what protocol extension the receiving end
supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol
extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails.
Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is
prepared in core:
certificate version 0.1
pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700
7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master
3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next
The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we
gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of
the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable,
falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the
certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows,
followed by a copy of the protocol message lines.
Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of
the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how
the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref
updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object
name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It
is expected that new command packet types other than the
old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the
same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in
unsigned pushes.
The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG,
formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed,
and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack).
In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the
sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in
turn comes before it sends the pack data.
3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate
is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about
the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable,
which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make
the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the
post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be
a good place to log all the received certificates for later
audits.
Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual
command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter
when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead.
This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to
review (in other words, the series at this step should never be
released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an
interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one).
As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of
this step.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin
Jonathan Tan
Michael J Gruber