undef/git-commit-vandalism
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
53ba2c799a
git-commit-vandalism/t/t5534-push-signed.sh

222 lines
5.9 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

push: the beginning of "git push --signed" While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so the signature on the object alone is insufficient. The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later. Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an orthogonal axis. The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this: 1. You push out your work with "git push --signed". 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual, together with what protocol extension the receiving end supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails. Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is prepared in core: certificate version 0.1 pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700 7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master 3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable, falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows, followed by a copy of the protocol message lines. Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It is expected that new command packet types other than the old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in unsigned pushes. The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG, formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed, and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack). In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in turn comes before it sends the pack data. 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable, which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be a good place to log all the received certificates for later audits. Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead. This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to review (in other words, the series at this step should never be released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one). As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of this step. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 20:17:07 +02:00
#!/bin/sh
test_description='signed push'
. ./test-lib.sh
. "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-gpg.sh
prepare_dst () {
rm -fr dst &&
test_create_repo dst &&
git push dst master:noop master:ff master:noff
}
test_expect_success setup '
# master, ff and noff branches pointing at the same commit
test_tick &&
git commit --allow-empty -m initial &&
git checkout -b noop &&
git checkout -b ff &&
git checkout -b noff &&
# noop stays the same, ff advances, noff rewrites
test_tick &&
git commit --allow-empty --amend -m rewritten &&
git checkout ff &&
test_tick &&
git commit --allow-empty -m second
'
test_expect_success 'unsigned push does not send push certificate' '
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
write_script dst/.git/hooks/post-receive <<-\EOF &&
# discard the update list
cat >/dev/null
# record the push certificate
if test -n "${GIT_PUSH_CERT-}"
then
git cat-file blob $GIT_PUSH_CERT >../push-cert
fi
EOF
git push dst noop ff +noff &&
! test -f dst/push-cert
'
test_expect_success 'talking with a receiver without push certificate support' '
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
write_script dst/.git/hooks/post-receive <<-\EOF &&
# discard the update list
cat >/dev/null
# record the push certificate
if test -n "${GIT_PUSH_CERT-}"
then
git cat-file blob $GIT_PUSH_CERT >../push-cert
fi
EOF
git push dst noop ff +noff &&
! test -f dst/push-cert
'
test_expect_success 'push --signed fails with a receiver without push certificate support' '
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
test_must_fail git push --signed dst noop ff +noff 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "the receiving end does not support" err
'
config: make git_{config,parse}_maybe_bool equivalent Both of these act on a string `value` which they parse as a boolean. The "parse"-variant was introduced as a replacement for the "config"-variant which for historical reasons takes an unused argument `name`. That it was intended as a replacement is not obvious from commit 9a549d43 ("config.c: rename git_config_maybe_bool_text and export it as git_parse_maybe_bool", 2015-08-19), but that is what the background on the mailing list suggests [1]. However, these two functions do not parse `value` in exactly the same way. In particular, git_config_maybe_bool accepts integers (0 for false, non-0 for true). This means there are two slightly different definitions of "maybe_bool" in the code-base, and that every time a call to git_config_maybe_bool is changed to use git_parse_maybe_bool, it risks breaking someone's workflow. Move the implementation of "config" into "parse" and make the latter a trivial wrapper. This also fixes the only user of git_parse_maybe_bool, `git push --signed=..`. [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq7fotd71o.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com/ Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-08-07 20:20:48 +02:00
test_expect_success 'push --signed=1 is accepted' '
t5334: document that git push --signed=1 does not work When accepting booleans as command-line or config options throughout Git, there are several documented synonyms for true and false. However, one particular user is slightly broken: `git push --signed=..` does not understand the integer synonyms for true and false. This is hardly wanted. The --signed option has a different notion of boolean than all other arguments and config options, including the config option corresponding to it, push.gpgSign. Add a test documenting the failure to handle --signed=1. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-08-07 20:20:46 +02:00
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
test_must_fail git push --signed=1 dst noop ff +noff 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "the receiving end does not support" err
'
send-pack: send feature request on push-cert packet We would want to update the interim protocol so that we do not send the usual update commands when the push certificate feature is in use, as the same information is in the certificate. Once that happens, the push-cert packet may become the only protocol command, but then there is no packet to put the feature request behind, like we always did. As we have prepared the receiving end that understands the push-cert feature to accept the feature request on the first protocol packet (other than "shallow ", which was an unfortunate historical mistake that has to come before everything else), we can give the feature request on the push-cert packet instead of the first update protocol packet, in preparation for the next step to actually update to the final protocol. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-18 22:46:58 +02:00
test_expect_success GPG 'no certificate for a signed push with no update' '
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
write_script dst/.git/hooks/post-receive <<-\EOF &&
if test -n "${GIT_PUSH_CERT-}"
then
git cat-file blob $GIT_PUSH_CERT >../push-cert
fi
EOF
git push dst noop &&
! test -f dst/push-cert
'
push: the beginning of "git push --signed" While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so the signature on the object alone is insufficient. The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later. Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an orthogonal axis. The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this: 1. You push out your work with "git push --signed". 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual, together with what protocol extension the receiving end supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails. Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is prepared in core: certificate version 0.1 pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700 7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master 3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable, falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows, followed by a copy of the protocol message lines. Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It is expected that new command packet types other than the old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in unsigned pushes. The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG, formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed, and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack). In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in turn comes before it sends the pack data. 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable, which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be a good place to log all the received certificates for later audits. Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead. This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to review (in other words, the series at this step should never be released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one). As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of this step. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 20:17:07 +02:00
test_expect_success GPG 'signed push sends push certificate' '
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
signed push: fortify against replay attacks In order to prevent a valid push certificate for pushing into an repository from getting replayed in a different push operation, send a nonce string from the receive-pack process and have the signer include it in the push certificate. The receiving end uses an HMAC hash of the path to the repository it serves and the current time stamp, hashed with a secret seed (the secret seed does not have to be per-repository but can be defined in /etc/gitconfig) to generate the nonce, in order to ensure that a random third party cannot forge a nonce that looks like it originated from it. The original nonce is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE for the hooks to examine and match against the value on the "nonce" header in the certificate to notice a replay, but returned "nonce" header in the push certificate is examined by receive-pack and the result is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS, whose value would be "OK" if the nonce recorded in the certificate matches what we expect, so that the hooks can more easily check. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-22 01:45:30 +02:00
git -C dst config receive.certnonceseed sekrit &&
push: the beginning of "git push --signed" While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so the signature on the object alone is insufficient. The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later. Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an orthogonal axis. The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this: 1. You push out your work with "git push --signed". 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual, together with what protocol extension the receiving end supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails. Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is prepared in core: certificate version 0.1 pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700 7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master 3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable, falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows, followed by a copy of the protocol message lines. Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It is expected that new command packet types other than the old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in unsigned pushes. The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG, formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed, and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack). In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in turn comes before it sends the pack data. 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable, which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be a good place to log all the received certificates for later audits. Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead. This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to review (in other words, the series at this step should never be released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one). As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of this step. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 20:17:07 +02:00
write_script dst/.git/hooks/post-receive <<-\EOF &&
# discard the update list
cat >/dev/null
# record the push certificate
if test -n "${GIT_PUSH_CERT-}"
then
git cat-file blob $GIT_PUSH_CERT >../push-cert
receive-pack: GPG-validate push certificates Reusing the GPG signature check helpers we already have, verify the signature in receive-pack and give the results to the hooks via GIT_PUSH_CERT_{SIGNER,KEY,STATUS} environment variables. Policy decisions, such as accepting or rejecting a good signature by a key that is not fully trusted, is left to the hook and kept outside of the core. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-15 00:59:21 +02:00
fi &&
cat >../push-cert-status <<E_O_F
SIGNER=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_SIGNER-nobody}
KEY=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_KEY-nokey}
STATUS=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_STATUS-nostatus}
signed push: fortify against replay attacks In order to prevent a valid push certificate for pushing into an repository from getting replayed in a different push operation, send a nonce string from the receive-pack process and have the signer include it in the push certificate. The receiving end uses an HMAC hash of the path to the repository it serves and the current time stamp, hashed with a secret seed (the secret seed does not have to be per-repository but can be defined in /etc/gitconfig) to generate the nonce, in order to ensure that a random third party cannot forge a nonce that looks like it originated from it. The original nonce is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE for the hooks to examine and match against the value on the "nonce" header in the certificate to notice a replay, but returned "nonce" header in the push certificate is examined by receive-pack and the result is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS, whose value would be "OK" if the nonce recorded in the certificate matches what we expect, so that the hooks can more easily check. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-22 01:45:30 +02:00
NONCE_STATUS=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS-nononcestatus}
NONCE=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE-nononce}
receive-pack: GPG-validate push certificates Reusing the GPG signature check helpers we already have, verify the signature in receive-pack and give the results to the hooks via GIT_PUSH_CERT_{SIGNER,KEY,STATUS} environment variables. Policy decisions, such as accepting or rejecting a good signature by a key that is not fully trusted, is left to the hook and kept outside of the core. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-15 00:59:21 +02:00
E_O_F
EOF
push: the beginning of "git push --signed" While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so the signature on the object alone is insufficient. The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later. Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an orthogonal axis. The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this: 1. You push out your work with "git push --signed". 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual, together with what protocol extension the receiving end supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails. Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is prepared in core: certificate version 0.1 pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700 7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master 3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable, falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows, followed by a copy of the protocol message lines. Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It is expected that new command packet types other than the old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in unsigned pushes. The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG, formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed, and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack). In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in turn comes before it sends the pack data. 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable, which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be a good place to log all the received certificates for later audits. Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead. This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to review (in other words, the series at this step should never be released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one). As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of this step. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 20:17:07 +02:00
git push --signed dst noop ff +noff &&
signed push: fortify against replay attacks In order to prevent a valid push certificate for pushing into an repository from getting replayed in a different push operation, send a nonce string from the receive-pack process and have the signer include it in the push certificate. The receiving end uses an HMAC hash of the path to the repository it serves and the current time stamp, hashed with a secret seed (the secret seed does not have to be per-repository but can be defined in /etc/gitconfig) to generate the nonce, in order to ensure that a random third party cannot forge a nonce that looks like it originated from it. The original nonce is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE for the hooks to examine and match against the value on the "nonce" header in the certificate to notice a replay, but returned "nonce" header in the push certificate is examined by receive-pack and the result is exported as GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS, whose value would be "OK" if the nonce recorded in the certificate matches what we expect, so that the hooks can more easily check. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-22 01:45:30 +02:00
(
cat <<-\EOF &&
SIGNER=C O Mitter <committer@example.com>
KEY=13B6F51ECDDE430D
STATUS=G
NONCE_STATUS=OK
EOF
sed -n -e "s/^nonce /NONCE=/p" -e "/^$/q" dst/push-cert
) >expect &&
t5534: fix misleading grep invocation It seems to be a little-known feature of `grep` (and it certainly came as a surprise to this here developer who believed to know the Unix tools pretty well) that multiple patterns can be passed in the same command-line argument simply by separating them by newlines. Watch, and learn: $ printf '1\n2\n3\n' | grep "$(printf '1\n3\n')" 1 3 That behavior also extends to patterns passed via `-e`, and it is not modified by passing the option `-E` (but trying this with -P issues the error "grep: the -P option only supports a single pattern"). It seems that there are more old Unix hands who are surprised by this behavior, as grep invocations of the form grep "$(git rev-parse A B) C" file were introduced in a85b377d041 (push: the beginning of "git push --signed", 2014-09-12), and later faithfully copy-edited in b9459019bbb (push: heed user.signingkey for signed pushes, 2014-10-22). Please note that the output of `git rev-parse A B` separates the object IDs via *newlines*, not via spaces, and those newlines are preserved because the interpolation is enclosed in double quotes. As a consequence, these tests try to validate that the file contains either A's object ID, or B's object ID followed by C, or both. Clearly, however, what the test wanted to see is that there is a line that contains all of them. This is clearly unintended, and the grep invocations in question really match too many lines. Fix the test by avoiding the newlines in the patterns. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-07-05 13:37:49 +02:00
noop=$(git rev-parse noop) &&
ff=$(git rev-parse ff) &&
noff=$(git rev-parse noff) &&
grep "$noop $ff refs/heads/ff" dst/push-cert &&
grep "$noop $noff refs/heads/noff" dst/push-cert &&
receive-pack: GPG-validate push certificates Reusing the GPG signature check helpers we already have, verify the signature in receive-pack and give the results to the hooks via GIT_PUSH_CERT_{SIGNER,KEY,STATUS} environment variables. Policy decisions, such as accepting or rejecting a good signature by a key that is not fully trusted, is left to the hook and kept outside of the core. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-08-15 00:59:21 +02:00
test_cmp expect dst/push-cert-status
push: the beginning of "git push --signed" While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so the signature on the object alone is insufficient. The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later. Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an orthogonal axis. The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this: 1. You push out your work with "git push --signed". 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual, together with what protocol extension the receiving end supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails. Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is prepared in core: certificate version 0.1 pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700 7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master 3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable, falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows, followed by a copy of the protocol message lines. Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It is expected that new command packet types other than the old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in unsigned pushes. The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG, formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed, and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack). In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in turn comes before it sends the pack data. 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable, which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be a good place to log all the received certificates for later audits. Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead. This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to review (in other words, the series at this step should never be released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one). As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of this step. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 20:17:07 +02:00
'
receive-pack: verify push options in cert In commit f6a4e61 ("push: accept push options", 2016-07-14), send-pack was taught to include push options both within the signed cert (if the push is a signed push) and outside the signed cert; however, receive-pack ignores push options within the cert, only handling push options outside the cert. Teach receive-pack, in the case that push options are provided for a signed push, to verify that the push options both within the cert and outside the cert are consistent. This sets in stone the requirement that send-pack redundantly send its push options in 2 places, but I think that this is better than the alternatives. Sending push options only within the cert is backwards-incompatible with existing Git servers (which read push options only from outside the cert), and sending push options only outside the cert means that the push options are not signed for. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-05-09 21:23:53 +02:00
test_expect_success GPG 'inconsistent push options in signed push not allowed' '
# First, invoke receive-pack with dummy input to obtain its preamble.
prepare_dst &&
git -C dst config receive.certnonceseed sekrit &&
git -C dst config receive.advertisepushoptions 1 &&
printf xxxx | test_might_fail git receive-pack dst >preamble &&
# Then, invoke push. Simulate a receive-pack that sends the preamble we
# obtained, followed by a dummy packet.
write_script myscript <<-\EOF &&
cat preamble &&
printf xxxx &&
cat >push
EOF
test_might_fail git push --push-option="foo" --push-option="bar" \
--receive-pack="\"$(pwd)/myscript\"" --signed dst --delete ff &&
# Replay the push output on a fresh dst, checking that ff is truly
# deleted.
prepare_dst &&
git -C dst config receive.certnonceseed sekrit &&
git -C dst config receive.advertisepushoptions 1 &&
git receive-pack dst <push &&
test_must_fail git -C dst rev-parse ff &&
# Tweak the push output to make the push option outside the cert
# different, then replay it on a fresh dst, checking that ff is not
# deleted.
perl -pe "s/([^ ])bar/\$1baz/" push >push.tweak &&
prepare_dst &&
git -C dst config receive.certnonceseed sekrit &&
git -C dst config receive.advertisepushoptions 1 &&
git receive-pack dst <push.tweak >out &&
git -C dst rev-parse ff &&
grep "inconsistent push options" out
'
push: heed user.signingkey for signed pushes push --signed promises to take user.signingkey as the signing key but fails to read the config. Make it do so. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-10-22 16:57:49 +02:00
test_expect_success GPG 'fail without key and heed user.signingkey' '
prepare_dst &&
mkdir -p dst/.git/hooks &&
git -C dst config receive.certnonceseed sekrit &&
write_script dst/.git/hooks/post-receive <<-\EOF &&
# discard the update list
cat >/dev/null
# record the push certificate
if test -n "${GIT_PUSH_CERT-}"
then
git cat-file blob $GIT_PUSH_CERT >../push-cert
fi &&
cat >../push-cert-status <<E_O_F
SIGNER=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_SIGNER-nobody}
KEY=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_KEY-nokey}
STATUS=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_STATUS-nostatus}
NONCE_STATUS=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS-nononcestatus}
NONCE=${GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE-nononce}
E_O_F
EOF
unset GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL &&
git config user.email hasnokey@nowhere.com &&
test_must_fail git push --signed dst noop ff +noff &&
git config user.signingkey committer@example.com &&
git push --signed dst noop ff +noff &&
(
cat <<-\EOF &&
SIGNER=C O Mitter <committer@example.com>
KEY=13B6F51ECDDE430D
STATUS=G
NONCE_STATUS=OK
EOF
sed -n -e "s/^nonce /NONCE=/p" -e "/^$/q" dst/push-cert
) >expect &&
t5534: fix misleading grep invocation It seems to be a little-known feature of `grep` (and it certainly came as a surprise to this here developer who believed to know the Unix tools pretty well) that multiple patterns can be passed in the same command-line argument simply by separating them by newlines. Watch, and learn: $ printf '1\n2\n3\n' | grep "$(printf '1\n3\n')" 1 3 That behavior also extends to patterns passed via `-e`, and it is not modified by passing the option `-E` (but trying this with -P issues the error "grep: the -P option only supports a single pattern"). It seems that there are more old Unix hands who are surprised by this behavior, as grep invocations of the form grep "$(git rev-parse A B) C" file were introduced in a85b377d041 (push: the beginning of "git push --signed", 2014-09-12), and later faithfully copy-edited in b9459019bbb (push: heed user.signingkey for signed pushes, 2014-10-22). Please note that the output of `git rev-parse A B` separates the object IDs via *newlines*, not via spaces, and those newlines are preserved because the interpolation is enclosed in double quotes. As a consequence, these tests try to validate that the file contains either A's object ID, or B's object ID followed by C, or both. Clearly, however, what the test wanted to see is that there is a line that contains all of them. This is clearly unintended, and the grep invocations in question really match too many lines. Fix the test by avoiding the newlines in the patterns. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-07-05 13:37:49 +02:00
noop=$(git rev-parse noop) &&
ff=$(git rev-parse ff) &&
noff=$(git rev-parse noff) &&
grep "$noop $ff refs/heads/ff" dst/push-cert &&
grep "$noop $noff refs/heads/noff" dst/push-cert &&
push: heed user.signingkey for signed pushes push --signed promises to take user.signingkey as the signing key but fails to read the config. Make it do so. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-10-22 16:57:49 +02:00
test_cmp expect dst/push-cert-status
'
push: the beginning of "git push --signed" While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my 'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so the signature on the object alone is insufficient. The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later. Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate" (for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an orthogonal axis. The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this: 1. You push out your work with "git push --signed". 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual, together with what protocol extension the receiving end supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails. Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is prepared in core: certificate version 0.1 pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700 7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master 3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable, falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows, followed by a copy of the protocol message lines. Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It is expected that new command packet types other than the old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in unsigned pushes. The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG, formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed, and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack). In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in turn comes before it sends the pack data. 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable, which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be a good place to log all the received certificates for later audits. Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead. This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to review (in other words, the series at this step should never be released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one). As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of this step. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-09-12 20:17:07 +02:00
test_done
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink