Stephan Hugel venit, vidit, dixit 05.10.2010 22:51: > On 5 October 2010 21:42, Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 05.10.2010 22:28: >>> Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Currently, git expects "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----" at the beginning of a >>>> signature. But gpg uses "MESSAGE" instead of "SIGNATURE" when used with >>>> the "rfc1991" option. This leads to git's faling to verify it's own >>>> signed tags. >>>> >>>> Be more lenient and take "-----BEGIN PGP " as the indicator. >>> >>> Thanks, but it bothers me that the patch is a bit inconsistently lenient. >>> >>> How many variants of PGP implementations are there? For example, I'd ask >>> these without doing my own research because I am lazy: >>> >>> 1. Does everybody place five dashes at the beginning (IOW, is there an >>> odd variant that puts four or six)? >>> >>> 2. Does everybody follow the dashes immediately with "BEGIN" (IOW, is >>> there an odd variant that puts a SP between them)? >>> >>> 3. Does everybody spell "BEGIN PGP " the same way, in all uppercase? >>> >>> 4. Does everybody place five dashes at the end (IOW, is there an odd >>> variant that puts four or six)? >>> >>> 5. Does everybody follow the "BEGIN PGP SOMETHING" immediately with >>> dashes without SP? >>> >>> Your patch seem to answer <yes, yes, yes, no, no> to the above question. >> >> On 4,5, my patch only implies that I (suggest we) don't care. >> >>> I'd find it saner if the patched code at least checked that the line ends >>> with 5 dashes. >> >> Alternatively, we can just say we support gnupg/openpg but not pgp 2.0, >> and running gpg with pgp 2.0 options is discouraged even by gpg's man page. >> >> The main issue here is that we create a detached signature (rather than >> a clear text signature) but then lump it together with the content (the >> tag object sans sig). The boundary mark between the two is not >> controlled by us but by gpg (and its options). >> >> In order to verify the sig, *we* have to split the lump again but we >> don't really know the boundary mark. It's insane by design. We should >> have used a non-volatile boundary mark. >> >> I'll check whether we can somehow feed the whole lump to gpg and make it >> recognize the attached-detached signature. That way we'd be as >> compatible as gpg. >> >> Michael >> > 5 dashes + BEGIN [other stuff] and > 5 dashes + END > was part of RFC1991: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1991#section-2.4.1 > > Which was obsoleted by RFC4880 : > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-6.2 > 5 dashes + BEGIN [some different stuff] > 5 dashes + END > > Aside from the above considerations, 5 dashes + BEGIN > would appear to conform to both the old and the current spec. Since > the current implementation of GnuPG only offers the rfc1991 > compatibility options, complying with both covers all (i.e. both) > possibilties, no? So, we (c|sh)ould really check for the two variants rather than being lenient, right? I'll bite the v2 apple. Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html