Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 14.06.2016 13:34:
> Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 14.06.2016 13:20:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:11:19PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>>
>>> When we create a signature, it may happen that gpg returns with
>>> "success" but not with an actual detached signature on stdout.
>>>
>>> Check for the correct header to catch these cases better.
>>
>> Seems like a reasonable idea.
>>
>> I do worry that checking for PGP_SIGNATURE is a little fragile, though.
>> We currently let you sign with gpgsm, for example, and I think this
>> would break it (the verification side is not great because we don't
>> recognize gpgsm headers, but this feels like a step backwards).
>>
>> That wouldn't be too hard to work around with a "is this a signature"
>> function that checks both types.
>>
>>> diff --git a/gpg-interface.c b/gpg-interface.c
>>> index c4b1e8c..664796f 100644
>>> --- a/gpg-interface.c
>>> +++ b/gpg-interface.c
>>> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ int sign_buffer(struct strbuf *buffer, struct strbuf *signature, const char *sig
>>>
>>> sigchain_pop(SIGPIPE);
>>>
>>> - if (finish_command(&gpg) || !len || len < 0)
>>> + if (finish_command(&gpg) || !len || len < 0 || strncmp(signature->buf, PGP_SIGNATURE, strlen(PGP_SIGNATURE)))
>>> return error(_("gpg failed to sign the data"));
>>
>> I think your strncmp is better spelled:
>>
>> starts_with(signature->buf, PGP_SIGNATURE);
>>
>> The check for "!len" is redundant now. I think you could drop "len < 0"
>> as well (and in fact, drop the "len" variable entirely), as in the error
>> case we'd simply have an empty signature->len.
>>
>> Your patch effectively swaps out "did we get any data" for "did we get
>> the data we expect", which is what those "len" checks were doing.
>>
>> -Peff
>>
>
> My patch actually makes several tests fail, sorry. (I did check before
> that I can still create signatures...) Maybe my offset in buf is wrong.
>
> starts_with, yes.
>
> Can't check any further now, sorry. But we do check for the
> PGP_SIGNATURE in our signed objects anyways. So I feel that we can either
>
> - tighthen the check for valid gpg signatures
>
> or
>
> - make our signature interface completely pluggable.
>
> We can't have it both ways, but at least things are localised in
> gpg-interface.c now.
>
> The proposed patch is just some consistency check that does not rely on
> gpg.program itself(!), or else we could simply call verify.
>
> Michael
So, with
!starts_with(signature->buf+bottom, PGP_SIGNATURE)
everything is fine except our tests for RFC1991 signatures.
Sigh...
I'll resend a patch that uses parse_signature so that all gpg specifics
are localised there.
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