| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Previously, signature verification for merge and pull operations checked
if the key had a trust-level of either TRUST_NEVER or TRUST_UNDEFINED in
verify_merge_signature(). If that was the case, the process die()d.
The other code paths that did signature verification relied entirely on
the return code from check_commit_signature(). And signatures made with
a good key, irregardless of its trust level, was considered valid by
check_commit_signature().
This difference in behavior might induce users to erroneously assume
that the trust level of a key in their keyring is always considered by
Git, even for operations where it is not (e.g. during a verify-commit or
verify-tag).
The way it worked was by gpg-interface.c storing the result from the
key/signature status *and* the lowest-two trust levels in the `result`
member of the signature_check structure (the last of these status lines
that were encountered got written to `result`). These are documented in
GPG under the subsection `General status codes` and `Key related`,
respectively [1].
The GPG documentation says the following on the TRUST_ status codes [1]:
"""
These are several similar status codes:
- TRUST_UNDEFINED <error_token>
- TRUST_NEVER <error_token>
- TRUST_MARGINAL [0 [<validation_model>]]
- TRUST_FULLY [0 [<validation_model>]]
- TRUST_ULTIMATE [0 [<validation_model>]]
For good signatures one of these status lines are emitted to
indicate the validity of the key used to create the signature.
The error token values are currently only emitted by gpgsm.
"""
My interpretation is that the trust level is conceptionally different
from the validity of the key and/or signature. That seems to also have
been the assumption of the old code in check_signature() where a result
of 'G' (as in GOODSIG) and 'U' (as in TRUST_NEVER or TRUST_UNDEFINED)
were both considered a success.
The two cases where a result of 'U' had special meaning were in
verify_merge_signature() (where this caused git to die()) and in
format_commit_one() (where it affected the output of the %G? format
specifier).
I think it makes sense to refactor the processing of TRUST_ status lines
such that users can configure a minimum trust level that is enforced
globally, rather than have individual parts of git (e.g. merge) do it
themselves (except for a grace period with backward compatibility).
I also think it makes sense to not store the trust level in the same
struct member as the key/signature status. While the presence of a
TRUST_ status code does imply that the signature is good (see the first
paragraph in the included snippet above), as far as I can tell, the
order of the status lines from GPG isn't well-defined; thus it would
seem plausible that the trust level could be overwritten with the
key/signature status if they were stored in the same member of the
signature_check structure.
This patch introduces a new configuration option: gpg.minTrustLevel. It
consolidates trust-level verification to gpg-interface.c and adds a new
`trust_level` member to the signature_check structure.
Backward-compatibility is maintained by introducing a special case in
verify_merge_signature() such that if no user-configurable
gpg.minTrustLevel is set, then the old behavior of rejecting
TRUST_UNDEFINED and TRUST_NEVER is enforced. If, on the other hand,
gpg.minTrustLevel is set, then that value overrides the old behavior.
Similarly, the %G? format specifier will continue show 'U' for
signatures made with a key that has a trust level of TRUST_UNDEFINED or
TRUST_NEVER, even though the 'U' character no longer exist in the
`result` member of the signature_check structure. A new format
specifier, %GT, is also introduced for users that want to show all
possible trust levels for a signature.
Another approach would have been to simply drop the trust-level
requirement in verify_merge_signature(). This would also have made the
behavior consistent with other parts of git that perform signature
verification. However, requiring a minimum trust level for signing keys
does seem to have a real-world use-case. For example, the build system
used by the Qubes OS project currently parses the raw output from
verify-tag in order to assert a minimum trust level for keys used to
sign git tags [2].
[1] https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=blob;f=doc/doc/DETAILS;h=bd00006e933ac56719b1edd2478ecd79273eae72;hb=refs/heads/master
[2] https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-builder/blob/9674c1991deef45b1a1b1c71fddfab14ba50dccf/scripts/verify-git-tag#L43
Signed-off-by: Hans Jerry Illikainen <hji@dyntopia.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When git-merge sees that we are on an unborn branch (i.e., there is no
HEAD), it follows a totally separate code path than the usual merge
logic. This code path does not know about verify_signatures, and so we
fail to notice bad or missing signatures.
This has been broken since --verify-signatures was added in efed002249
(merge/pull: verify GPG signatures of commits being merged, 2013-03-31).
In an ideal world, we'd unify the flow for this case with the regular
merge logic, which would fix this bug and avoid introducing similar
ones. But because the unborn case is so different, it would be a burden
on the rest of the function to continually handle the missing HEAD. So
let's just port the verification check to this special case.
Reported-by: Felix Eckhofer <felix@eckhofer.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
A couple of test scripts create forged GPG signed commits or tags to
check that such forgery can't fool various git commands' signature
verification. All but one of those test scripts are prone to
occasional failures because the forgery creates a bogus GPG signature,
and git commands error out with an unexpected error message, e.g.
"Commit deadbeef does not have a GPG signature" instead of "... has a
bad GPG signature".
't5573-pull-verify-signatures.sh', 't7510-signed-commit.sh' and
't7612-merge-verify-signatures.sh' create forged signed commits like
this:
git commit -S -m "bad on side" &&
git cat-file commit side-bad >raw &&
sed -e "s/bad/forged bad/" raw >forged &&
git hash-object -w -t commit forged >forged.commit
On rare occasions the given pattern occurs not only in the commit
message but in the GPG signature as well, and after it's replaced in
the signature the resulting signature becomes invalid, GPG will report
CRC error and that it couldn't find any signature, which will then
ultimately cause the test failure.
Since in all three cases the pattern to be replaced during the forgery
is the first word of the commit message's subject line, and since the
GPG signature in the commit object is indented by a space, let's just
anchor those patterns to the beginning of the line to prevent this
issue.
The test script 't7030-verify-tag.sh' creates a forged signed tag
object in a similar way by replacing the pattern "seventh", but the
GPG signature in tag objects is not indented by a space, so the above
solution is not applicable in this case. However, in the tag object
in question the pattern "seventh" occurs not only in the tag message
but in the 'tag' header as well. To create a forged tag object it's
sufficient to replace only one of the two occurences, so modify the
sed script to limit the pattern to the 'tag' header (i.e. a line
beginning with "tag ", which, because of the space character, can
never occur in the base64-encoded GPG signature).
Note that the forgery in 't7004-tag.sh' is not affected by this issue:
while 't7004' does create a forged signed tag kind of the same way,
it replaces "signed-tag" in the tag object, which, because of the '-'
character, can never occur in the base64-encoded GPG signarute.
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The previous steps added test_when_finished to tests that run 'git
pull' or 'git merge' with expectation of success, so that the test
after them can start from a known state even when their 'git pull'
invocation unexpectedly fails. However, tests that run 'git pull'
or 'git merge' expecting it not to succeed forgot to protect later
tests the same way---if they unexpectedly succeed, the test after
them would start from an unexpected state.
Reset and checkout the initial commit after all these tests, whether
they expect their invocations to succeed or fail.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
git merge --verify-signatures can be used to verify that the tip commit
of the branch being merged in is properly signed, but it's cumbersome to
have to specify that every time.
Add a configuration option that enables this behaviour by default, which
can be overridden by --no-verify-signatures.
Signed-off-by: Hans Jerry Illikainen <hji@dyntopia.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
but during a setup phase. We may fail to notice failure in
commands that build the test environment, but these are
typically not expected to fail at all (but it's still good
to double-check that our test environment is what we
expect).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When --verify-signatures is specified, abort the merge in case a good
GPG signature from an untrusted key is encountered.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte <jaseg@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When --verify-signatures is specified on the command-line of git-merge
or git-pull, check whether the commits being merged have good gpg
signatures and abort the merge in case they do not. This allows e.g.
auto-deployment from untrusted repo hosts.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte <jaseg@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Hans Jerry Illikainen
Jeff King
SZEDER Gábor
Junio C Hamano
Sebastian Götte