From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA711FC96 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751696AbcLFWYU (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2016 17:24:20 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:33234 "EHLO mail-pg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751212AbcLFWYT (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2016 17:24:19 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 3so153846994pgd.0 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:24:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=OF2c55L7KsuDeMjSaMCtrhCJ0thXZ1Tk6IiuWEsTW3o=; b=P556+hpA1YhoGeHf/LilRSqtQL/8j2cKU2dOHFFq+2tRt/os+esi6UZ2kc8xLKCjhC LhvVgRfEuFVgX0ieqE9yLzLb20Xotuv+vtIb/bX/DkoLHXpomQ34FKKIbHYR/qDhSf/q q4E0u+Q6xXamlPTWm3/XgbxvUQlm1TDZksj6xmCiZt4P2pWuW3JqNcQsiW6bVFzH7GcT sSS9LztVcyoEfDOZtrJi31fu8s3azamrsbfEgRIHC8IBLmsTo7lD9eIwRG19Ii6Q35Om i+ZnGCfI3K8v8rYHoRhjL1JPfm7R9iMSa/UISADT66ZjblSo0t6y5RqZWLExUv2JSvQa Vn5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=OF2c55L7KsuDeMjSaMCtrhCJ0thXZ1Tk6IiuWEsTW3o=; b=gGAizl2LBnABnvqaaf3xSZQxmQvcd7ZlLibzMantyqLHrbMnYAVgGHUE0B70qAQTuy pMpNc9QXZkoDU3D7MQH8QJK9mnLGYG64uhI6lgBzGA0yjsMAdV4p+6EBERZkCaYdoq5b goqz7nEdxcFGeCKZ0QwNfu+zqsdVKNC3CssT4LklMB4JMEnYRyayow0c6KDjjkGbhZ4R 4Nzr35figljw6HM/XP/DJ7AfggBlb22DEfyVTztL5tZIdnSpkSh/kpi17zPg/JgnBuJk juw5CWn6rc09Q9cLcd3tHY5erFcIVXCZHUWWpcxL3yseUsrbBrq7BsOoIrHVr5q8tNHS Qd4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00rxLf2icolz0wArOab1d+euDIYkIpBjkHcXnh1sRg5CzVm2xYohLjftr7PnHxLyse0 X-Received: by 10.98.130.1 with SMTP id w1mr64726761pfd.35.1481063058533; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:1000:5b00:e0c5:1a05:7bf2:5496]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 186sm37065332pfv.61.2016.12.06.14.24.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:24:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:24:16 -0800 From: Brandon Williams To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, sbeller@google.com, bburky@bburky.com, jrnieder@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/4] transport: add from_user parameter to is_transport_allowed Message-ID: <20161206222416.GB103573@google.com> References: <1480621447-52399-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com> <1480623959-126129-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com> <1480623959-126129-5-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com> <20161201214004.3qujo5sfdn3y6c5u@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161201230738.GJ54082@google.com> <20161201235856.GL54082@google.com> <20161206135113.i7nlr45vg7uzgfcn@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161206135113.i7nlr45vg7uzgfcn@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 12/06, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 12:04:52PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > I'm sending out another reroll of this series so that in Jeff's he can > > > just call 'get_curl_allowed_protocols(-1)' for the non-redirection curl > > > option, which should make this test stop barfing. > > > > I was hoping to eventually merge Peff's series to older maintenance > > tracks. How bad would it be if we rebased the v8 of this series > > together with Peff's series to say v2.9 (or even older if it does > > not look too bad)? > > My series actually fixes existing security problems, so I'd consider it > a bug-fix. I _think_ Brandon's series is purely about allowing more > expressiveness in the whitelist policy, and so could be considered more > of a feature. Yes this was really the main intent on my series. > So one option is to apply my series for older 'maint', and then just > rebase Brandon's on top of that for 'master'. > > I don't know if that makes things any easier. I feel funny saying "no, > no, mine preempts yours because it is more maint-worthy", but I think > that order does make sense. > > I think it would be OK to put Brandon's on maint, too, though. It is a > refactor of an existing security feature to make it more featureful, but > the way it is implemented could not cause security regressions unless > you use the new feature (IOW, we still respect the whitelist environment > exactly as before). Either way let me know if there is something I need to do. -- Brandon Williams