Re: [PATCH 2/3] githooks.txt: Amend dangerous advice about 'update' hook ACL

> Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> -Another use suggested on the mailing list is to use this hook to
>>> -implement access control which is finer grained than the one
>>> -based on filesystem group.
>>> +Another use for this hook to implement access control which is finer
>>> +grained than the one based on filesystem group. Note that if the user
>>> +pushing has a normal login shell on the machine receiving the push
>>> +implementing access control like this can be trivially bypassed by
>>> +just using not executing the hook. In those cases consider using
>>
>> "by just using not executing the hook."
>>
>> This grammar doesn't make sense. It doesn't quite match what you said
>> in the commit message either.
>>
>>> +e.g. linkgit:git-shell[1] as the login shell to restrict the user's
>>> +access.
>
> While there is nothing technically wrong in what it says, I wonder
> if it is worth to state the obvious.  If one can bypass update hook,
> one can bypass any other hook, so the information does not even
> belong here.
>
> Instead of saying "acl can be implemented on top of update hook, but
> not quite because you can bypass it", it may be more useful to say
> "in an environment that restricts the users' access only to git
> commands over the wire, this hook can be used to access control
> without relying on filesystem ownership and group membership",
> perhaps?