From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:16:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/1] apply: reject input that touches outside $cwd
Message-ID: <20150130191621.GA30156@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqegqcccjt.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:07:34AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > It looks like your new --allow-uplevel goes to verify_path(). So this
> > isn't just about "..", but it will also protect against applying a patch
> > inside ".git". Which seems like a good thing to me, but I wonder if the
> > option name is a little misleading.
> 
> True; not just misleading but is incorrect, I would say.
> Suggestions?

I think just "--verify-paths" (and "--no-verify-paths", since the former
would be the default) might be fine. That leaves the definition of
"verify" vague, but I think that's OK. It used to mean "no '..' and no
'.git'", and now it has been widened to include "no weird
filesystem-specific variants of .git".

If you wanted to avoid the negative being the commonly used option,
maybe "--unsafe-paths" (or "--allow-unsafe-paths" if you like verbs).

-Peff