Hi, I'm an engineer with AMD. I'm looking at whether we could switch our internal version control to a monorepo, possibly one based on git and VFSForGit. One obstacle to moving AMD to git/VFSForGit is the lack of access control support in git. AMD has a lot of data whose distribution must be limited. Sometimes it's a legal requirement, eg. CPU core designs are covered by US export control laws and not all employees may see them. Sometimes it's a contractual obligation, as when a third party shares data with us and we agree only to share this data with certain employees. Any hypothetical AMD monorepo should be able to securely deny read access in certain subtrees to users without required permissions. Has anyone looked at adding access control to git, at a per-directory granularity? Is this a feature that the git community would possibly welcome? Here's my rough thinking about how it might work: - an administrator can designate that a tree object requires zero or more named privileges to read - when a mortal user attempts to retrieve the tree object, a hook allows the server to check if the user has a given privilege. The hook can query an arbitrary user/group data base, LDAP or whatever. The details of this check are mostly in the hook; git only knows about abstract named privileges. - if the user has permission, everything goes as normal. - if the user lacks permission, they get a DeniedTree object which might carry some metadata about what permissions would be needed to see more. The DeniedTree lacks the real tree's entries. (TBD, how do we render a denied tree in the workspace? An un-writable directory containing only a GITDENIED file with some user friendly error message?) - hashes are secret. If the hashes from a protected tree leak, the data also leaks. No check on the server prevents it from handing out contents for correctly-guessed hashes. - mortal users shouldn't be able to alter permissions. Of course, mortal users will often modify tree objects that carry permissions. So the server should enforce that a user isn't pushing updates that alter permissions on the same logical directory. I would welcome your feedback on whether this idea makes technical sense, and whether the feature could ever be a fit for git. You might ask what alternatives we are looking at. At our scale, we'd really want a version control system that implements a virtual filesystem. That already limits us to ClearCase, VFSForGit, and maybe Vesta among public ones. Am I missing any? We would also want one that permits branching enormous numbers of files without creating enormous amounts of data in the repo -- git gets that right, and perforce (our status quo) does not. That's how I got onto the idea of adding read authorization to git. Thanks, John
