Right, understood. So 'hiding path" is not wording that mod_authz_svn can use, but we can come up with some authz-specific wording that's different from the current "access denied," right? On 20 Jan 2015 12:54, "Ivan Zhakov" <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 14:15, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > On 19.01.2015 18:10, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > >> I've implemented proposed behavior in r1653032. > >> > >> On 18 January 2015 at 06:48, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: > >>> It would be nice if the the logged message should be different in that > >>> case, too. That is: there should be some indication, besides the > >>> different log level, that the subrequest-generated log event is > >>> "normal". > >>> > >>> That is, we don't want this: > >>> > >>> [debug] Access denied: /private > >>> [error] Access denied: /private > >>> > >>> But this: > >>> > >>> [debug] Hiding directory '/private' (Access denied) > >>> [error] Access denied: /private > >>> > >>> (Or some other log level instead of "debug" — I haven't thought about > >>> what log level would be appropriate.) > >> I agree that different log message would be nice to have, but there is > >> an issue: in mod_authz_svn we're not 100% sure that path will be > >> hidden. mod_authz_svn just answer the question whether access allowed > >> or not, but it doesn't know how this information will be used latter > >> at mod_dav_svn layer. May be different wording may fix this issue > >> though. > > > > I'm confused: when/why would mod_dav_svn ignore the result of an authz > > check? > > > I meant that hiding unreadable path is not only possible behavior for > mod_dav_svn. For example it may error out if it got unreadable path. > For example get-locks-report: attempt to get lock for unreadable path > will result requested failure (subversion\mod_dav_svn\lock.c:470). IMO > logging "Hiding path" will be confusing for user. > > > -- > Ivan Zhakov > CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com >
