Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] bugreport: add config values from whitelist

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:14:35PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> >
> > > Teach bugreport to gather the values of config options which are
> > > present in 'git-bugreport-config-whitelist'.
> > >
> > > Many config options are sensitive, and many Git add-ons use config
> > > options which git-core does not know about; it is better only to
> > > gather config options which we know to be safe, rather than
> > > excluding options which we know to be unsafe.
> >
> > Should we still have the `// bugreport-exclude` comments, then?
>
> They were optional (useless) before too. I can remove them if you want;
> I suppose I like the idea of having precedent if someone wants to build
> their own internal version with opt-out configs rather than opt-in. I
> can remove them if we want; it doesn't matter very much to me either
> way.

> > > diff --git a/bugreport.c b/bugreport.c
> > > [...]
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void get_whitelisted_config(struct strbuf *config_info)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct strbuf path = STRBUF_INIT;
> > > +
> > > +	strbuf_addstr(&path, git_exec_path());
> > > +	strbuf_addstr(&path, "/git-bugreport-config-whitelist");
> >
> > Hmm. I would have expected this patch to come directly after the patch
> > 2/9 that generates that white-list, and I would also have expected that
> > to be pre-sorted, and compiled in.
> >
> > Do you want users to _edit_ the file in the exec path? In general, that
> > path will be write-protected, though. A better alternative would
> > probably be to compile in a hard-coded list, and to allow including more
> > values e.g. by offering command-line options to specify config setting
> > patterns. But if we allow patterns, we might actually want to have those
> > exclusions to prevent sensitive data from being included.
>
> Hm, interesting. Do we have precedent for compiling in a header
> generated during the build process? I think I saw one when I was adding
> this script - I'll take a look.