[PATCH 2 of 2] subrepo: check that subrepo paths are valid (issue4363)
mads at kiilerich.com
Wed Sep 10 12:31:15 CDT 2014
On 09/10/2014 04:57 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 01:31 +0200, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>> On 09/09/2014 07:56 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh at octave.org>
>>> # Date 1410279641 14400
>>> # Tue Sep 09 12:20:41 2014 -0400
>>> # Node ID 3db2b7dd861d7134412678f96df7b7bb1cfe9c82
>>> # Parent 7611a7833657301d9a881095828d5e75558d82f9
>>> subrepo: check that subrepo paths are valid (issue4363)
>>> This checks that proposed subrepo paths are valid using
>>> pathutil.pathauditor. This check is already done when creating a
>>> subrepo object in the subrepo.subrepo function, but I think this is
>>> too late and doesn't catch the case where a modified .hgsub has had
>>> new paths added but hasn't been committed yet.
>> Why do you think that is too late?
> I say right here, "doesn't catch the case where a modified..." Testing
> for bad paths later doesn't catch this case.
Path auditor is primarily to protect the user from bad commits from
other uses, secondarily to protect users from making such commits. It is
not possible to protect the user from himself and we shouldn't try too
hard to do it.
Mentioning what would happen and having a test case for it would help.
>>> diff --git a/mercurial/subrepo.py b/mercurial/subrepo.py
>>> --- a/mercurial/subrepo.py
>>> +++ b/mercurial/subrepo.py
>>> @@ -130,6 +130,12 @@ def state(ctx, ui):
>>> if os.path.isfile(path):
>>> raise util.Abort(_('subrepository path is an existing file: %s')
>>> % path)
>>> + try:
>>> + pathutil.pathauditor(ctx._repo.root)(path)
>>> + except util.Abort, e:
>>> + raise util.Abort(_('bad subrepository path; %s') % e.message,
>>> + hint=e.hint)
>>> kind = 'hg'
>>> if src.startswith('['):
>>> if ']' not in src:
>>> @@ -344,7 +350,6 @@ def subrepo(ctx, path):
>>> import hg as h
>>> hg = h
>>> - pathutil.pathauditor(ctx._repo.root)(path)
>> Are you 200% confident that removing this pathauditor in another method
>> doesn't open up for any un-audited code paths?
> It passes the test suite.
Path auditor is a security mechanism. Tests can prove expected behaviour
in some defined cases, but they cannot prove that there in no cases will
be "wrong" behaviour - and that is essentially what security is.
> And I know that before creating a subrepo
> object, .hgsub must be parsed, so erroring out when parsing .hgsub
> seems to be the best thing to do.
If you have reviewed that all execution paths that would have hit the
old pathauditor now will hit the new one instead, then say so.
> There's a bigger problem here, really, that I changed the error
> message in order to actually make it clear what the bad path was
> about. The error message before was really cryptic and made it
> impossible to know that it was about subrepos. So, that really is a
> BC, which I guess passed the test suite because we don't have a test
> for it.
> Assuming this BC can happen (and my guess is it will be shot down),
> Augie raised the point that it means I should change how
> pathutil.pathauditor works, since apparently catching util.Abort is
> undesirable, although I'm not 100% clear on why. I suppose it's too
> generic of a catch. If that is the problem, then I would prefer to
> modify pathauditor to raise a subclass of util.Abort, but Augie
> indicated this was bad technical debt too. This explanation is still
> obscure to me.
> So what's the problem with catching util.Abort? I'd rather not make
> the more annoying change of modifying pathauditor and all of its
> callers to return status and error messages instead of raising
That is discussion of the third and not so crucial patch - don't let
that block the first two patches.
If it really is relevant to provide context for such exceptions, I would
suggest catching the abort (or pretty much all exceptions), show a
ui.error "error happened processing X:", and re-raise.
More information about the Mercurial-devel