Dnia October 20, 2018 11:57:36 PM UTC, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>
napisał(a):
>Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> writes:
>
>> GnuPG supports creating signatures consisting of multiple signature
>> packets. If such a signature is verified, it outputs all the status
>> messages for each signature separately. However, git currently does
>not
>> account for such scenario and gets terribly confused over getting
>> multiple *SIG statuses.
>>
>> For example, if a malicious party alters a signed commit and appends
>> a new untrusted signature, git is going to ignore the original bad
>> signature and report untrusted commit instead. However, %GK and %GS
>> format strings may still expand to the data corresponding
>> to the original signature, potentially tricking the scripts into
>> trusting the malicious commit.
>>
>> Given that the use of multiple signatures is quite rare, git does not
>> support creating them without jumping through a few hoops, and
>finally
>> supporting them properly would require extensive API improvement, it
>> seems reasonable to just reject them at the moment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org>
>> ---
>> gpg-interface.c | 90
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> t/t7510-signed-commit.sh | 26 ++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> * switched to using skip_prefix(),
>> * renamed the variable to seen_exclusive_status,
>> * made the loop terminate early on first duplicate status seen.
>
>Thanks for sticking to the topic and polishing it further. Looks
>very good.
>
>Will replace.
>
>> + int seen_exclusive_status = 0;
>> +
>> + /* Iterate over all lines */
>> + for (line = buf; *line; line = strchrnul(line+1, '\n')) {
>> + while (*line == '\n')
>> + line++;
>> + /* Skip lines that don't start with GNUPG status */
>> + if (!skip_prefix(line, "[GNUPG:] ", &line))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /* Iterate over all search strings */
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sigcheck_gpg_status); i++) {
>> + if (skip_prefix(line, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check,
>> &line)) {
>> + if (sigcheck_gpg_status[i].flags &
>> GPG_STATUS_EXCLUSIVE) {
>> + if (++seen_exclusive_status > 1)
>> + goto found_duplicate_status;
>
>Very minor point but by not using pre-increment, i.e.
>
> if (seen_exclusive_status++)
> goto found_duplicate_status;
>
>you can use the expression as a "have we already seen?" boolean,
>whic may probably be more idiomatic.
>
>The patch is good in the way written as-is, and this is so minor
>that it is not worth rerolling to only update this part.
Please don't merge it yet. I gave it some more thought and I think the loop
refactoring may cause TRUST_* to override BADSIG (i.e. upgrade from 'bad' to
'untrusted'). I'm going to verify this when I get home.
>
>Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
