Re: Re: [PATCH v2] config: preserve config file permissions on edits

> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
>> Am 5/6/2014 2:17, schrieb Eric Wong:
>>> Users may already store sensitive data such as imap.pass in
>>> ..git/config; making the file world-readable when "git config"
>>> is called to edit means their password would be compromised
>>> on a shared system.
>>>
>>> [v2: updated for section renames, as noted by Junio]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
>>> ---
>>>  config.c               | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>  t/t1300-repo-config.sh | 10 ++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/config.c b/config.c
>>> index a30cb5c..c227aa8 100644
>>> --- a/config.c
>>> +++ b/config.c
>>> @@ -1636,6 +1636,13 @@ int git_config_set_multivar_in_file(const char *config_filename,
>>>                       MAP_PRIVATE, in_fd, 0);
>>>               close(in_fd);
>>>
>>> +             if (fchmod(fd, st.st_mode & 07777) < 0) {
>>> +                     error("fchmod on %s failed: %s",
>>> +                             lock->filename, strerror(errno));
>>> +                     ret = CONFIG_NO_WRITE;
>>> +                     goto out_free;
>>> +             }
>>
>> This introduces a severe failure in the Windows port because we do not
>> implement fchmod. Existing fchmod invocations do not check the return
>> value, and they are only interested in removing the write bits, and we
>> generally don't care a lot if files remain writable.
>>
>> I'm not proficient enough to add any ACL fiddling to fchmod that would be
>> required by the above change, whose purpose is to be strict about
>> permissions. Nor am I interested (who the heck is sharing a Windows box
>> anyway? ;-)
>>
>> Therefore, here's just a work-around patch to keep things going on
>> Windows. Any opinions from the Windows corner?
>>
>
> Since we use MSVCRT's chmod implementation directly which only checks
> for S_IWRITE,and Get/SetFileAttributes to simply set or clear the
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY-flag, perhaps we could do the same except
> using Get/SetFileInformationByHandle instead? That takes us in a
> better direction, IMO. Adding full ACL support seems like a bigger
> project.
>
> If there's no objection, I'll sketch up a patch for that...