Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> (by the way, we do not do dashes in names for configuration by
> convention)
OK. Actually, I now think I'd prefer a subsection [include "safe"], but
I don't have any strong preferences regarding the names.
> That syntax _could_ be just a relative path (e.g. project.gitconfig names
> the file with that name at the top-level of the working tree), and if we are
> to do so, we should forbid any relative path that escapes from the working
> tree (e.g. ../project.gitconfig is forbidden, but down/down/../../.gitconfig
> could be OK as it is the same as .gitconfig). For that matter, anything with
> /./ and /../ in it can safely be forbidden without losing functionality.
I agree that it would be most useful to interpret relative paths as
being relative to the working tree. I'm not sure what would be gained by
checking for ./ and ../ components, a symlink could easily be used to
circumvent that.
> And we can allow absolute path, e.g. /etc/gitconfig, of course, but I'd
> prefer to at least initially forbid an absolute path, due to the same worries
> I have against the "unset some variables defined in /etc/gitconfig" topic
> we discussed earlier today in a separate thread.
One might (ab)use the feature to only use some settings from a global
file, e.g.
[include "safe"]
whitelist = !foo.*
path = ~/extra.gitconfig
But I'm fine with forbidding absolute paths until someone actually comes
with such a use case.
> Another design decision we would need to make is if it should be
> allowed for a safe-included file to use safe-include directive to
> include other files. Offhand I do not think of a reason we absolutely
> need to support it, but there may be an interesting workflow enabled
> if we did so. I dunno.
After one level of safe-include, any safe-include can also be done as a
normal include (but one may need to spell the path differently if the
two included files are not both at the top of the working tree). One
could imagine a project supplying lots of defaults and splitting those
into separate files, each included from a single project.gitconfig.
Anyway, my proposal allows nesting includes and safe-includes inside
safe-includes; forbidding it would just be a matter of adding a
safe_include_depth == 0 check in two places. (Then safe_include_depth
probably could/should be renamed in_safe_include.) I think I have a
slight preference to allowing nested includes, but if absolute paths are
forbidden for safe-includes, they should also be forbidden for
include-inside-safe-include.
Rasmus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
