threads / patch / 20176

patchPreserve the protection mode for the Git config files

Subject: [PATCH] Preserve the protection mode for the Git config files

## tl;dr

5 messages between Jul 21, 2009 and Jul 27, 2009. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 4people: 4as markdown or json

Catalin Marinas· Jul 21, 2009, 15:24 UTC · lore

Every time an option is set, the config file protection mode is changed to 0666 & ~umask even if it was different before. This patch is useful if people store passwords (SMTP server in the StGit case) and do not want others to read the .gitconfig file.

Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
---
 lockfile.c |    6 +++++-
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Show changes to lockfile.c +5 −1

diff --git a/lockfile.c b/lockfile.c
index eb931ed..87ee233 100644
--- a/lockfile.c
+++ b/lockfile.c
@@ -124,8 +124,12 @@ static char *resolve_symlink(char *p, size_t s)
 
 static int lock_file(struct lock_file *lk, const char *path, int flags)
 {
+	struct stat st;
+
 	if (strlen(path) >= sizeof(lk->filename))
 		return -1;
+	if (stat(path, &st) < 0)
+		st.st_mode = 0666;
 	strcpy(lk->filename, path);
 	/*
 	 * subtract 5 from size to make sure there's room for adding
@@ -134,7 +138,7 @@ static int lock_file(struct lock_file *lk, const char *path, int flags)
 	if (!(flags & LOCK_NODEREF))
 		resolve_symlink(lk->filename, sizeof(lk->filename)-5);
 	strcat(lk->filename, ".lock");
-	lk->fd = open(lk->filename, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0666);
+	lk->fd = open(lk->filename, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, st.st_mode);
 	if (0 <= lk->fd) {
 		if (!lock_file_list) {
 			sigchain_push_common(remove_lock_file_on_signal);

Junio C Hamano· Jul 22, 2009, 18:14 UTC · re: Catalin Marinas · lore

Re: [PATCH] Preserve the protection mode for the Git config files

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Every time an option is set, the config file protection mode is changed
> to 0666 & ~umask even if it was different before. This patch is useful
> if people store passwords (SMTP server in the StGit case) and do not
> want others to read the .gitconfig file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> ---
>  lockfile.c |    6 +++++-
>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lockfile.c b/lockfile.c
> index eb931ed..87ee233 100644
> --- a/lockfile.c
> +++ b/lockfile.c
> @@ -134,7 +138,7 @@ static int lock_file(struct lock_file *lk, const char *path, int flags)
>  	if (!(flags & LOCK_NODEREF))
>  		resolve_symlink(lk->filename, sizeof(lk->filename)-5);
>  	strcat(lk->filename, ".lock");
> -	lk->fd = open(lk->filename, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0666);
> +	lk->fd = open(lk->filename, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, st.st_mode);
>  	if (0 <= lk->fd) {
>  		if (!lock_file_list) {
>  			sigchain_push_common(remove_lock_file_on_signal);

Your log message talks about .git/config and nothing else, but I think this codepath affects everything that is created under the lock, such as the index and refs.

Later in the function we call adjust_shared_perm(), and I had to wonder if this change have an adverse effect in a shared repository setting.

For example, in a repository shared (with core.sharedrepository = true) between users whose umask is 002, if somebody makes a ref unreadable by others by mistake, the current code fixes the mistake in a later update, but with your patch, the ref will kept unreadable.

This change in behaviour is justifiable only because the only thing the user who said "core.sharedrepository = true" cares about is that refs are readable by the group members (otherwise s/he would have used a more explicit setting like "core.sharedrepository = 0660", and the adjust_shared_perm() code will do the right thing, with or without your patch).

The patch description must defend itself a bit better, perhaps by saying something like this at the end.

	This patch touches the codepath that affects not just .git/config
	but other files like the index and the loose refs, so they also
	inherit the original protection bits.  In a private repository,
	this is not an issue exactly because the repository is private,

	In a shared repository, a later call made in this function to
	adjust_shared_perm() widens the permission bits as configured.
	Because adjust_shared_perm() is designed to do so from any mode
	limited by user's umask, even though this patch changes the
	behaviour in the strict sense, it should not affect the outcome in
	a negative way and what is explicitly marked as allowed in the
	configuration will still be allowed.

Nanako Shiraishi· Jul 22, 2009, 22:08 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] Preserve the protection mode for the Git config files

Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

Show 22 quoted lines

> This change in behaviour is justifiable only because the only thing the
> user who said "core.sharedrepository = true" cares about is that refs are
> readable by the group members (otherwise s/he would have used a more
> explicit setting like "core.sharedrepository = 0660", and the
> adjust_shared_perm() code will do the right thing, with or without your
> patch).
>
> The patch description must defend itself a bit better, perhaps by saying
> something like this at the end.
>
> 	This patch touches the codepath that affects not just .git/config
> 	but other files like the index and the loose refs, so they also
> 	inherit the original protection bits.  In a private repository,
> 	this is not an issue exactly because the repository is private,
>
> 	In a shared repository, a later call made in this function to
> 	adjust_shared_perm() widens the permission bits as configured.
> 	Because adjust_shared_perm() is designed to do so from any mode
> 	limited by user's umask, even though this patch changes the
> 	behaviour in the strict sense, it should not affect the outcome in
> 	a negative way and what is explicitly marked as allowed in the
> 	configuration will still be allowed.

I have two questions.

1. Why would you keep sensitive information in the config file in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to introduce a level of indirection, making a variable in the config file to point to a private file only you can read and store secrets in the latter?

2. Why is your config file more secret than your history? Wouldn't it solve your problem without any patch if you set core.sharedrepository to 0600?

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/

Johannes Schindelin· Jul 22, 2009, 22:37 UTC · re: Nanako Shiraishi · lore

Re: [PATCH] Preserve the protection mode for the Git config files

Hi,

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Nanako Shiraishi wrote:

> 1. Why would you keep sensitive information in the config file in the 
>    first place? Wouldn't it be better to introduce a level of 
>    indirection, making a variable in the config file to point to a 
>    private file only you can read and store secrets in the latter?

I agree that secret information should probably go to another file, although care has to be taken not to write that other file with "git config -f", as that would display the very same issue.

> 2. Why is your config file more secret than your history?

That one's easy. If you store passwords in the config file, it _is_ more secret than the history. You might be very willing to show people what you did, but still be unwilling to allow people to push commits with your credentials.

> Wouldn't it solve your problem without any patch if you set 
> core.sharedrepository to 0600?

I doubt it, as that config setting does not change anything in the working directory retro-actively.

You _could_ chmod 0700 .git. But that is probably not what Catalin wanted.

Ciao, Dscho

Catalin Marinas· Jul 27, 2009, 18:18 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] Preserve the protection mode for the Git config files

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 11:14 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
> > Every time an option is set, the config file protection mode is changed
> > to 0666 & ~umask even if it was different before. This patch is useful
> > if people store passwords (SMTP server in the StGit case) and do not
> > want others to read the .gitconfig file.

[...]

> Your log message talks about .git/config and nothing else, but I think
> this codepath affects everything that is created under the lock, such as
> the index and refs.

I haven't checked all the places where this function is called. For my use-case, I store the SMTP password in the .git/config file (or ~/.gitconfig) and every time I update this file (with git or via stgit), the permission gets changed.

Show 15 quoted lines

> The patch description must defend itself a bit better, perhaps by saying
> something like this at the end.
> 
> 	This patch touches the codepath that affects not just .git/config
> 	but other files like the index and the loose refs, so they also
> 	inherit the original protection bits.  In a private repository,
> 	this is not an issue exactly because the repository is private,
> 
> 	In a shared repository, a later call made in this function to
> 	adjust_shared_perm() widens the permission bits as configured.
> 	Because adjust_shared_perm() is designed to do so from any mode
> 	limited by user's umask, even though this patch changes the
> 	behaviour in the strict sense, it should not affect the outcome in
> 	a negative way and what is explicitly marked as allowed in the
> 	configuration will still be allowed.

Thanks for the explanation. Would you like me to repost with your description?

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin