Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 06.09.2016 18:43:
> Hi Michael,
> okay, final mail on this issue today:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> Your original issue seemed to be that the gpg command could succeed, but
>> still no signature be seen. There *must* be a way to test whether the
>> called program added a signature, simply by testing whether *any*
>> characters were written.
>> And if characters were written that were not actually a GPG signature,
>> maybe the enterprisey user who configured the gpg command to be her magic
>> script actually meant something else than a GPG signature to be added?
> I actually just saw that this is *precisely* what the code does already:
> if (ret || signature->len == bottom)
> return error(_("gpg failed to sign the data"));
> Why is this not good enough?
Assuming "this" refers to error():
You said it's not good enough - because gpg's stderr is not displayed.
And I agree with you on that point.
Assuming "this" refers to the exit code check:
gpg documentation says so over and over again: do not rely on exit
codes, parse status-fd instead. (An often ignored advice, oh well.)
As for most of your other remarks, I would appreciate if you could take
a breath and reread what I wrote and what you wrote - before you send it
- and curb your remarks about who is working on resolving issues.
So, trying again to structure the issues and solutions, there are three
A) relying on gpg's exit code (and stdout) is not enough. Secure use of
gpg requires checking status-fd.
This is what my old patch solved.
B) "gpg --status-fd=2" and swallowing stderr hides usual stderr from the
This is what my old patch introduced and a Windows user reported. It is
solved by my new additional patch.
C) With that old patch, that Windows user is not asked for a passphrase
on tty any more.
Reverting my patches appears to solve C on Windows and reintroduces A on
all platforms, obviously. C is not present on Linux. B is solved either way.
Now, I can't reproduce C on Linux[*], so there is more involved. It
could be that my patch just exposes a problem in our start_command()
etc.: run-command.c contains a lot of ifdefing, so possibly quite
different code is run on different platforms.
It would be great if someone with a Windows environment could help our
efforts in resolving issue C, by checking what is actually behind[**]: I
can't believe that capturing stderr keeps gpg from reading stdin, but
who knows. Maybe Jeff of pipe_command() fame? I'll put him on cc.
[*] Maybe that even depends on Linux environments (terminal emulator),
so input from others would be helpful, too:
Without a passphrase-agent/wallet etc, does "git tag -s -m test test"
ask you for a passphrase on the terminal?
I does for me with this stack:
[**] "--status-fd=3" instead of "--status-fd=2" in my old patch would be
a check whether our capturing of stderr is creating problems on Windows
or gpg's writing status to stderr (which --status-fd=3 would change, at
the expense of breaking the final check): Does gpg ask for the