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, 21:30 UTC
Message-ID
<20160607213050.GF24676@LykOS.localdomain>
In-Reply-To
<20160607211707.GA7981@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> That is much more flexible, as they could even do some more complicated
> matching than a single string (though in practice, for security things,
> I think simpler is better).
> 
> I think this option is going to become a blueprint for other "extended"
> checks, too. E.g., you might also want to check that the tagger ident
> matches the uid on the signing key.
> 
> My main worry is that we'll accrue a whole bunch of such logic. And even
> though each one is relatively simple, it would be nice for callers to be
> able to ask us to just do the standard safety checks.

I agree with this. I can't think of other checks off the top of my head, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case.

I think that having custom flags for each check can also derive in each package manager/user picking each check based on many different rationales, which might lead to people overcomplicating things?

Show 10 quoted lines
> 
> If we do go with the "print it out and let the caller do their own
> checks" strategy, I think I'd prefer rather than "--show-tagname" to
> just respect the "--format" we use for tag-listing. That would let you
> do:
> 
>   git tag -v --format='%(tag)%n%(tagger)'
> 
> or similar. In fact you can already do that with a separate step (modulo
> %n, which we do not seem to understand here), but like your example:

It worries me that, in this case, the patches for upstream managers might be harder to integrate/pitch for users.

Also, maybe we could take both strategies? add a --check-name for verify-tag and a --format for tag -v (I think either change is easy enough to do).

Show 15 quoted lines
> 
> > Or it could even do this:
> > 
> > 	tag="$1"
> > 	if ! git tag -v "$tag"
> > 	if ! git tag -v "$tag"
> >         then
> > 		echo >&2 "Bad tag."
> >                 exit 1
> > 	fi
> > +	tag=$(git tag --show-tagname $tag)
> > 	make dest=/usr/local/$package/$tag install
> 
> It is racy. That probably doesn't matter for most callers, but it would
> be nice to be able to get a custom format out of the "-v" invocation.

Oh yeah, I didn't consider this either. I also don't think it's such an issue, but it sounds like a good idea not to have these races.

> 
> -Peff

Thanks! -Santiago.

Previous: Jeff KingNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 4 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.