Re: git 2.2.x: Unexpected, overstrict file permissions after "git update-server-info"

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 6, 2015, 10:08 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqd26sql0v.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150106034702.GA11503@peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Yeah, I didn't consider the mode impact of using mkstemp. That is
> definitely a regression that should be fixed. Though of course if you
> really do want 0644, you should set your umask to 0022. :)
> ...
> If you haven't set core.sharedrepository, then adjust_shared_perm is a
> noop. But you shouldn't have to do that. Git should just respect your
> umask in this case.

Thanks for a nicely done patch series, but I am not sure if I agree with the analysis and its conclusion.

If adjust_shared_perm is a no-op, how do we ensure that other files that need to be served by a dumb HTTP server are readable by it? Is it because we just happen not to use mkstemp() to create them (and also is it because the pushers do not have umask 007 or stronger to prevent files from being read by the HTTP server user)?

Is our goal here to give the users this statement?

    For shared repository served by dumb HTTP and written by users
    who are different from the user that runs the HTTP server, you
    need to do nothing special.

If that is the case, shouldn't the rule be something a lot looser than "we should just respect your umask"? To satisify the above goal, shouldn't we somehow make it readable by the HTTP user even when some pusher has a draconian 0077 umask? But that, while still complying to the promise of "nothing special", would imply we would have to make everything readable everywhere, whish is an unachievable goal. We need to somehow be able to say "this repository should be readable by these people" per-repository basis.

And we have a mechanism exactly designed to do so to defeat draconian umask individual users have.

It feels to me that the old set-up were "working" by accident, not by design (I may be mistaken--so correct me if that were the case). And if that is the case, I do not think it is a good idea to try to hide the broken configuration under the rug longer. "As long as everybody writes world-readable files, you do not have to do anything" will break when the next person with 0xx7 umask setting pushes, no?