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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 15, 2016, 00:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20160615005614.GB32601@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqporj72p4.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > I'm still undecided on whether it is a better approach than making
> > sure the stdout we got looks sane. In particular I'd worry that it
> > would make things harder for somebody trying to plug in something
> > gpg-like (e.g., if you wanted to do something exotic like call a
> > program which fetched the signature from a remote device or
> > something).  But it's probably not _that_ hard for such a script
> > to emulate --status-fd.
> 
> I share the same thinking, but at the same time, it already is a
> requirement to give --status-fd output that is close enough on the
> signature verification side, isn't it?

Yeah, though I could see somebody wanting to sit amidst the signing side but not verification (e.g., if your keys are elsewhere from the machine running git). Of course such a case could probably ferry --status-fd from the other side anyway.

I admit I don't know of such a case in practice, though, and implementing a rudimentary --status-fd to say "SIG OK" or whatever on the signing side is not _that_ big a deal. So if we think this approach is a more robust solution in the normal case, let's not hold it up over what-ifs.

-Peff