Re: [PATCH 2/2] http: update curl http/2 info matching for curl 8.3.0

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 16, 2023, 05:25 UTC
Message-ID: <20230916052540.GA13092@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsf7fe1q4.fsf@gitster.g>

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:21:55AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > @@ -751,6 +753,18 @@ static int match_curl_h2_trace(const char *line, const char **out)
> >  	    skip_iprefix(line, "h2 [", out))
> >  		return 1;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * curl 8.3.0 uses:
> > +	 *   [HTTP/2] [<stream-id>] [<header-name>: <header-val>]
> > +	 * where <stream-id> is numeric.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (skip_iprefix(line, "[HTTP/2] [", &p)) {
> > +		while (isdigit(*p))
> > +			p++;
> > +		if (skip_prefix(p, "] [", out))
> > +			return 1;
> > +	}
> 
> Looking good assuming that <stream-id> part will never be updated to
> allow spaces around the ID, or allow non-digits in the ID, in the
> future.  Is there much harm if this code allowed false positives and
> sent something that is *not* a curl trace, like "foo]" parsed out of
> "[HTTP/2] [PATCH] [foo]", to redact_sensitive_header() function?

The current code on the generating side is pretty strict. It's literally a printf using "[HTTP/2] [%d] [%.*s: %.*s]". As far as future changes, I'm hesitant to make any changes based on guesses of what _could_ happen. Our chance of hitting the mark is not high (I never would have dreamed about this format after seeing the existing h2h3 ones), and it always carries the risk of misinterpretation.

You are right that the cost of a false positive is probably not too high (the absolute worst case is that we redact something that looks header-ish in the trace output). But even still, I'd prefer not to complicate the code with extra parsing for a format that may or may not ever come to exist.

If we were to loosen the parsing, it would make more sense to me to loosen _much_ more, and just look for anything inside brackets. Something like:

	p = header->buf;
	while ((p = strchr(p, '['))) {
		if (redact_sensitive_header(header, p - header->buf + 1)) {
			/* redaction ate our closing bracket */
			strbuf_addch(header, ']');
			break;
		}
		p++; /* skip past to look for next opening bracket */
	}

Then we are relying on redact_sensitive_header() to match the header strings, and we'll pass it lots of garbage which it will reject. But at least we've bought something: all of the h2 formats we know about will just work, and any future ones which retain the bracketing will as well.

That said, I'm still somewhat inclined to the stricter parsing, just because it's possible for us to see arbitrary bytes here. So if you had a header that happened to have brackets in it, we'd match those. Probably nothing too bad could come of it, but it just feels sloppy to me.

Show 7 quoted lines

> By the way, would this patch make sense?  Everybody in the function
> that try to notice a sensitive header seems to check the sentting
> independently, which seems error prone for those who want to add a
> new header to redact.
> [...]
> +	if (!trace_curl_redact)
> +		return ret;

Yeah, that looks a reasonable simplification to me (though obviously orthogonal to the patch under discussion).

-Peff