Re: Fwd: Git credentials not working

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 3, 2018, 20:43 UTC
Message-ID: <20181003204312.GC20709@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <84e704e0-fbf9-230f-459c-2927dea19a03@gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:34:17AM +0700, Dimitri Kopriwa wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> I have replaced the way I fill the git credentials store, I have verify
> ~/.git-credentials and information are there, the ~/.gitconfig look fine
> too.
> 
> I still have 401 error when reading from that file.
> 
> This is the paste log : https://paste.gnome.org/pmntlkdw0
> 
> Now that I use git approve, I dont think that I need a custom helper.
> 
> Any idea why I still can't log in using git-credential?

Looking at your pastebin, it looks like the server sometimes takes it and sometimes not. E.g., piping the log through:

  egrep '(Send|Recv) header:' |
  perl -lpe 's/^.*?(=>|<=) //'

I see:

  Send header: GET /example-keys/sample-project.git/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack HTTP/1.1
  Send header: User-Agent: git/2.19.0
  ...
  Recv header: HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
  Recv header: WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="GitLab"
  ...
  Send header: GET /example-keys/sample-project.git/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack HTTP/1.1
  Send header: Authorization: Basic <redacted>
  Send header: User-Agent: git/2.19.0
  ...
  Recv header: HTTP/1.1 200 OK

So that works. But then later we get:

  Send header: GET /example-keys/sample-project.git/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack HTTP/1.1
  Send header: User-Agent: git/2.19.0
  ...
  Recv header: HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
  Recv header: WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="GitLab"
  ...
  Send header: GET /example-keys/sample-project.git/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack HTTP/1.1
  Send header: Authorization: Basic <redacted>
  Send header: User-Agent: git/2.19.0
  ...
  Recv header: HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized

And then that causes credential-store to delete the non-working entry, after which all of them must fail (because you have no working credential, and presumably no terminal to prompt the user).

I have no idea why the same request would sometimes be allowed and sometimes not. It's possible the <redacted> data is different in those two times, but I don't know why that would be. It's also possible you're hitting different load-balancing servers that behave differently.

-Peff