Re: [PATCHv3] gpg-interface: check gpg signature creation status

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:17:54AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> As for the flexibility:
>> We do code specifically for gpg, which happens to work for gpg2 also.
>> The patch doesn't add any gpg ui requirements that we don't require
>> elsewhere already.
>> More flexibility requires a completely pluggable approach - gpgsm
>> already fails to meet the gpg command line ui.
> 
> Does it? I haven't run it in production, but I did some tests with gpgsm
> a few months ago and found it to be a drop-in replacement, at least with
> respect to git. Though I don't think that matters one way or the other
> for the current discussion; it _does_ do --status-fd.

>> In any case, "status-fd" is *the* way to interface with gpg reliably
>> just like plumbing commands are *the* way to interface with git reliably.
> 
> Fair enough. I've generally found its exit code pretty reliable. It's
> unclear to me if the problem you saw was because gpg was exiting 0 but
> producing no signature, or if your debugging was masking its exit code.
> 
> Either way, I do not mind using --status-fd; it seems like it should be
> more robust in general. It's the tip commit in the series I'm about to
> post.
> 
>> As for the read locking:
>> I'm sorry I have no idea about that area at all. I thought that I'm
>> doing the same that we do for verify, but apparently not. My
>> strbuf_read-fu is not that strong either (read: copy&paste). I trust
>> your assessment completely, though.
> 
> Yeah, you're right that the deadlock thing is also a possibility on the
> verification side. I'm not sure whether it's possible to trigger in
> practice or not. See the analysis in the series.

>> As for the original problem:
>> That had a different cause, as we know now (rebase dropping signatures
>> without hint). I still think we should check gpg status codes properly.
> 
> Yep, I agree.
> 
> -Peff
>