git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [RFC/PATCH] verify-tag: add --check-name flag

From
Santiago Torres <santiago@nyu.edu>
Date
Jun 7, 2016, 21:20 UTC
Message-ID
<20160607212023.GE24676@LykOS.localdomain>
In-Reply-To
<xmqq7fe0pv5b.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:05:20PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> santiago@nyu.edu writes:
> 
> > 1.- Using a tag ref as a check-out mechanism is pretty common by package
> >     managers and other tools. Verifying the tag signature provides
> >     authentication guarantees, but there is no feedback that the
> >     signature being verified belongs to the intended tag.
> 
> Very true.
> 
> The above means that the existing package managers and other tools
> need to be updated with some new code that lets them learn how to
> tell if the tagname (in their refs/tags/ namespace) matches the
> intended "real" tag name, and your --check-name option could be
> that.
> 
> But if you are adding new code to the existing package managers and
> other tools _anyway_, wouldn't it be a more direct solution to let
> them learn how to tell what the intended "real" tag name is with
> that new code?

Yeah, you're right, I didn't consider that. I'm thinking that this kind of verification could simplify the lives of upstream maintainers if we do the verification in-house though (i.e., by having them just add the flag).

Show 11 quoted lines
> 
> which may be cumbersome.  Perhaps, just like "git tag -v v1.4.11" is
> a way to see if the contents of the tag is signed properly, if you
> add "git tag --show-tagname v1.4.11" that does the above pipeline,
> these package managers and other tools can be updated to
> ...
> make dest=/usr/local/$package/$tag install
> 
> i.e. ignore the refname entirely and use the "real" tagname it reads
> after validating the signature as the name of the resulting version
> getting installed, distributed and/or used.

This is also an alternative, that might be cleaner. I'm wondering if this is easier to implement than having the --check-name flag. Intuitively, it seems like that's the case. Would you suggest taking this path instead?

Thanks! -Santiago.

Previous: Michael J GruberNext: Jeff King
Message 18 of 21 in “verify-tag: add --check-name flag”
  1. verify-tag: add --check-name flagsantiago@nyu.edu, Jun 7, 2016
  2. Junio C HamanoJun 7, 2016
  3. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016
  4. Santiago TorresJun 7, 2016
  5. Junio C HamanoJun 7, 2016
  6. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016
  7. Junio C HamanoJun 7, 2016
  8. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016
  9. Junio C HamanoJun 7, 2016
  10. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016
  11. Santiago TorresJun 7, 2016
  12. Junio C HamanoJun 7, 2016
  13. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016
  14. Junio C HamanoJun 7, 2016
  15. Santiago TorresJun 8, 2016
  16. Junio C HamanoJun 8, 2016
  17. Michael J GruberJun 9, 2016
  18. Santiago TorresJun 7, 2016
  19. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016
  20. Santiago TorresJun 7, 2016
  21. Jeff KingJun 7, 2016

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.