From: Taylor Blau <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "brian m. carlson" <email@example.com>,
Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] --end-of-options marker
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:54:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190807165431.GA60876@syl.local> (raw)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 04:17:49AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2019-08-06 at 23:43:20, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:58:53PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > > Sorry, I hadn't had a chance to look at this series in depth, but I was
> > > wondering: could we not just accept two separate "--" arguments, and if
> > > there are two of them, interpret the first with the traditional meaning
> > > and the second with the Git-specific meaning? That would be much more
> > > intuitive for folks, although I suspect it would take a little more work
> > > in the options parser.
> > That also crossed my mind, but I think it opens up some complicated
> > corner cases. For instance, if I'm parsing left-to-right and see "--",
> > how do I know which separator it is meant to be? I think the only rule
> > that makes sense is that you must have two "--", like:
> > git rev-list [options] -- [revs] -- [paths]
> I was assuming that we wouldn't have a huge number of command-line
> arguments and we'd check ahead, although that could of course cause some
> pain when used with xargs, I suppose, especially on Linux with its huge
> > but that means parsing the whole thing before we can interpret any of
> > it. What kinds of tricks can an attacker play by putting "--" in the
> > revs or paths areas? E.g., what does this mean:
> > # expanded from "git rev-list -- $revs -- $paths"
> > git rev-list -- --foo -- -- --bar --
> > I think if we at least choose the left-most "--" as the official
> > end-of-options then they can't inject an option (they can only inject a
> > rev as a path). I guess that's the same as with --end-of-options. But it
> > somehow feels less clear to me than a separate marker.
This is definitely the secure option among the two, but I'm not sure
that it makes me feel better about this alternative direction. I dislike
the ambiguity in having two '--'s, and I don't think that this is
something we ought to concern callers with.
'--end-of-options' is on the one hand, cumbersome to write, but it is
clear. I think that this is an acceptable trade-off, because we don't
expect users at the command line to ever type this. So, some extra
clarity in favor of a drop in convenience for a supposedly smaller
number of use cases seems like a favorable trade-off to me.
> I suppose if there's more than two, then interpret the first one as the
> end-of-options marker, the second one in the traditional way, and any
> subsequent ones as pathspecs matching the file "--". Writing such a
> command line would be silly, but we'd fail secure.
> > It also doesn't allow this:
> > # allow paths and revs, with optional separator, but no more options
> > git rev-list --end-of-options "$@"
> > though I'm not sure whether anybody cares.
> That's a good point. I don't have a strong view either way, but I
> thought I'd ask about alternatives.
> brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
> OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-06 14:38 [PATCH 0/3] --end-of-options marker Jeff King
2019-08-06 14:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] revision: allow --end-of-options to end option parsing Jeff King
2019-08-06 14:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] parse-options: allow --end-of-options as a synonym for "--" Jeff King
2019-08-06 14:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] gitcli: document --end-of-options Jeff King
2019-08-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 0/3] --end-of-options marker Junio C Hamano
2019-08-06 16:36 ` Randall S. Becker
2019-08-06 17:38 ` Jeff King
2019-08-06 17:58 ` Randall S. Becker
2019-08-06 18:14 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-08-08 10:03 ` Jeff King
2019-08-06 17:33 ` Jeff King
2019-08-06 22:58 ` brian m. carlson
2019-08-06 23:43 ` Jeff King
2019-08-07 4:17 ` brian m. carlson
2019-08-07 16:54 ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2019-08-08 10:28 ` Jeff King
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).