Em Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:05:55 +0200 Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Hi Johannes, > > On Friday 25 December 2015 16:59:50 Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-12-24 at 14:06 +0000, Finucane, Stephen wrote: > > > > > > > Paths are validated by trying to compile it as a regexp using a > > > > custom validator. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]> > > > > > > Some small nits that I can fix myself. Other than that, > > > > A small comment that may or may not be relevant - but there's a bunch > > of things one can do with regexes, from taking a lot of CPU to taking a > > lot of memory. > > > > What's the trust model for running regexes? I haven't found it in the > > patches easily right now. If it's configured only in the config file it > > should be OK, but if any kind of remote user can configure it then it > > may need safeguards of some kind? > > > > I'm just thinking of a use case like kernel.org where you don't really > > even trust the people who are the typical delegates/admins in patchwork > > for a given project, since they are pretty much just random people the > > admin doesn't necessarily trust much. > > > > (Or put another way - I'd hate for them to patch out/disable this > > feature because of security concerns, since I'd want to use it on > > kernel.org, but I'm not sure the admins would want me configuring > > arbitrary regexes there) > > I agree with your concerns but haven't given them a thought to be honest. > Right now only patchwork admins can changes the rules, but as you mention we > might not trust them. > > I've used regexps for convenience, we could possibly replace them with a less > dangerous type of pattern. One option I was toying with was to create rules > automatically from MAINTAINERS, but I don't think that would be flexible > enough. > IMHO, the real problem here is the need that everybody with write access should be project maintainer in patchwork, and it lacks logs when a patch is delegated or changed its status. I would very much prefer to be able to delegate a patch to a driver maintainer (with I don't have much trustee enough to promote it to a Project Maintainer), but, in this case, I would need logs if such person changes the patch status or delegates the patch to somebody else. I would also expect that the project maintainers would receive any notification e-mails if such person changes the status. Even better, I would like to be able to approve such changes for the ones I don't trust enough, as I would need to confirm if the patch change is associated with enough review emails at the ML, and, in the case of patch acceptance, I would need to take the action of adding the patch on my tree. Regards, Mauro _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
