I agree that we cannot have a completly secure and reliable 
way to forbid a push to the wrong remote. This is not what
our feature is trying to do, we assume that if a programmer 
tweaks his config file and changes the rules he knows what
he is doing and we won't try to prevent it.
Our goal is to implement a safeguard against accidental push,
the feature will work only if the programmer wants it to.

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Randall S. Becker" <rsbec...@nexbridge.com>
> À: "Francois Beutin" <beut...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>, git@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: "matthieu moy" <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr>, "simon rabourg" 
> <simon.rabo...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>, "wiliam
> duclot" <wiliam.duc...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>, "antoine queru" 
> <antoine.qu...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 20 Mai 2016 16:22:17
> Objet: RE: [Opinion gathering] Git remote whitelist/blacklist
> 
> On May 20, 2016 10:22 AM, Francois Beutin wrote:
> > We (Ensimag students) plan to implement the "remote whitelist/blacklist"
> > feature described in the SoC 2016 ideas, but first I would like to be sure
> > we
> > agree on what exactly this feature would be, and that the community sees an
> > interest in it.
> > 
> > The general idea is to add a way to prevent accidental push to the wrong
> > repository, we see two ways to do it:
> > First solution:
> >  - a whitelist: Git will accept a push to a repository in it
> >  - a blacklist: Git will refuse a push to a repository in it
> >  - a default policy
> > 
> > Second solution:
> >  - a default policy
> >  - a list of repository not following the default policy
> > 
> > The new options in config if we implement the first solution:
> > 
> > [remote]
> >     # List of repository that will be allowed/denied with
> >                                     # a whitelist/blacklist
> >     whitelisted = "http://git-hosting.org";
> >     blacklisted = "http://git-hosting2.org";
> > 
> >     # What is displayed when the user attempts a push on an
> >             # unauthorised repository? (this option overwrites
> >             # the default message)
> >     denymessage = "message"
> > 
> >     # What git should do if the user attempts a push on an
> >             # unauthorised repository (reject or warn and
> >             # ask the user)?
> >     denypolicy = reject(default)/warning
> > 
> >     # How should unknown repositories be treated?
> >     defaultpolicy = allow(default)/deny
> > 
> > 
> > Some concrete usage example:
> > 
> >  - A beginner is working on company code, to prevent him from
> >     accidentally pushing the code on a public repository, the
> >     company (or him) can do:
> > git config --global remote.defaultpolicy "deny"
> > git config --global remote.denymessage "Not the company's server!"
> > git config --global remote.denypolicy "reject"
> > git config --global remote.whitelisted "http://company-server.com";
> > 
> > 
> >  - A regular git user fears that he might accidentally push sensible
> >     code to a public repository he often uses for free-time
> >     projects, he can do:
> > git config remote.defaultpolicy "allow"     #not really needed
> > git config remote.denymessage "Are you sure it is the good server?"
> > git config remote.denypolicy "warning"
> > git config remote.blacklisted "http://github/personnalproject";
> > 
> > 
> > We would like to gather opinions about this before starting to
> >     implement it, is there any controversy? Do you prefer the
> >     first or second solution (or none)? Do you find the option's
> >     names accurate?
> 
> How would this feature be secure and made reliably consistent in managing the
> policies (I do like storing the lists separate from the repository, btw)? My
> concern is that by using git config, a legitimate clone can be made of a
> repository with these attributes, then the attributes overridden by local
> config on the clone turning the policy off, changing the remote, and thereby
> allowing a push to an unauthorized destination (example: one on the
> originally intended blacklist). It is unclear to me how a policy manager
> would keep track of this or even know this happened and prevent policies
> from being bypassed - could you clarify this for the requirements?
> 
> Cheers,
> Randall
> 
> -- Brief whoami: NonStop&UNIX developer since approximately
> UNIX(421664400)/NonStop(211288444200000000)
> -- In my real life, I talk too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to