kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

9563 Commits

6 Branches

36 Tags

131 MiB

Tree: b9d14ffbf1

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Shawn O. Pearce	9398e5aa16	Contribute a fairly paranoid update hook I'm using a variant of this update hook in a corporate environment where we perform some validations of the commits and tags that are being pushed. The model is a "central repository" type setup, where users are given access to push to specific branches within the shared central repository. In this particular installation we run a specially patched git-receive-pack in setuid mode via SSH, allowing all writes into the repository as the repository owner, but only if this hook blesses it. One of the major checks we perform with this hook is that the 'committer' line of a commit, or the 'tagger' line of a new annotated tag actually correlates to the UNIX user who is performing the push. Users can falsify these lines on their local repositories, but the central repository that management trusts will reject all such forgery attempts. Of course 'author' lines are still allowed to be any value, as sometimes changes do come from other individuals. Another nice feature of this hook is the access control lists for all repositories on the system can also be stored and tracked in a supporting Git repository, which can also be access controlled by itself. This allows full auditing of who-had-what-when-and-why, thanks to git-blame's data mining capabilities. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Gerrit Pape	5850cb645d	rename contrib/hooks/post-receieve-email to contrib/hooks/post-receive-email. $ git grep post-receieve-email $ git grep post-receive-email templates/hooks--post-receive:#. /usr/share/doc/git-core/contrib/hooks/post-receive-email $ Signed-off-by: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Andy Parkins	4557e0de5b	Reimplement emailing part of hooks--update in contrib/hooks/post-receive-email The update hook is no longer the correct place to generate emails; there is now the hooks/post-receive script which is run automatically after a ref has been updated. This patch is to make use of that new location, and to address some faults in the old update hook. The primary problem in the conversion was that in the update hook, the ref has not actually been changed, but is about to be. In the post-receive hook the ref has already been updated. That meant that where we previously had lines like: git rev-list --not --all would now give the wrong list because "--all" in the post-receive hook includes the ref that we are making the email for. This made it more difficult to show only the new revisions added by this update. The solution is not pretty; however it does work and doesn't need any changes to git-rev-list itself. It also fixes (more accurately: reduces the likelihood of) a nasty race when another update occurs while this script is running. The solution, in short, looks like this (see the source code for a longer explanation) git rev-parse --not --all \| grep -v $(git rev-parse $refname) \| git rev-list --pretty --stdin $oldrev..$newrev This uses git-rev-parse followed by grep to filter out the revision of the ref in question before it gets to rev-list and inhibits the output of itself. By using $(git rev-parse $revname) rather than $newrev as the filter, it also takes care of the situation where another update to the same ref has been made since $refname was $newrev. The second problem that is addressed is that of tags inhibiting the correct output of an update email. Consider this, with somebranch and sometag pointing at the same revision: git push origin somebranch git push origin sometag That would work fine; the push of the branch would generate an email containing all the new commits introduced by the update, then the push of the tag would generate the shortlog formatted tag email. Now consider: git push origin sometag git push origin somebranch When some branch comes to run its "--not --all" line, it will find sometag, and filter those commits from the email - leaving nothing. That meant that those commits would not show (in full) on any email. The fix is to not use "--all", and instead use "--branches" in the git-rev-parse command. Other changes * Lose the monstrous one-giant-script layout and put things in easy to digest functions. This makes it much easier to find the place you need to change if you wanted to customise the output. I've also tried to write more verbose comments for the same reason. The hook script is big, mainly because of all the different cases that it has to handle, so being easy to navigate is important. * All uses of "git-command" changed to "git command", to cope better if a user decided not to install all the hard links to git; * Cleaned up some of the English in the email * The fact that the receive hook makes the ref available also allows me to use Shawn Pearce's fantastic suggestion that an annotated tag can be parsed with git-for-each-ref. This removes the potentially non-portable use of "<<<" heredocs and the nasty messing around with "date" to convert numbers of seconds UTC to a real date * Deletions are now caught and notified (briefly) * To help with debugging, I've retained the command line mode from the update hook; but made it so that the output is not emailed, it's just printed to the screen. This could then be redirected if the user wanted * Removed the "Hello" from the beginning of the email - it's just noise, and no one seriously has their day made happier by "friendly" programs * The fact that it doesn't rely on repository state as an indicator any more means that it's far more stable in its output; hopefully the same arguments will always generate the same email - even if the repository changes in the future. This means you can easily recreate an email should you want to. * Included Jim Meyering's envelope sender option for the sendmail call * The hook is now so big that it was inappropriate to copy it to every repository by keeping it in the templates directory. Instead, I've put a comment saying to look in contrib/hooks, and given an example of calling the script from that template hook. The advantage of calling the script residing at some fixed location is that if a future package of git included a bug fixed version of the script, that would be picked up automatically, and the user would not have to notice and manually copy the new hook to every repository that uses it. Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Shawn O. Pearce

9398e5aa16

Contribute a fairly paranoid update hook

I'm using a variant of this update hook in a corporate environment
where we perform some validations of the commits and tags that
are being pushed.  The model is a "central repository" type setup,
where users are given access to push to specific branches within
the shared central repository.  In this particular installation we
run a specially patched git-receive-pack in setuid mode via SSH,
allowing all writes into the repository as the repository owner,
but only if this hook blesses it.

One of the major checks we perform with this hook is that the
'committer' line of a commit, or the 'tagger' line of a new annotated
tag actually correlates to the UNIX user who is performing the push.
Users can falsify these lines on their local repositories, but
the central repository that management trusts will reject all such
forgery attempts.  Of course 'author' lines are still allowed to
be any value, as sometimes changes do come from other individuals.

Another nice feature of this hook is the access control lists for
all repositories on the system can also be stored and tracked in
a supporting Git repository, which can also be access controlled
by itself.  This allows full auditing of who-had-what-when-and-why,
thanks to git-blame's data mining capabilities.

Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

18 years ago

Gerrit Pape

5850cb645d

rename contrib/hooks/post-receieve-email to contrib/hooks/post-receive-email.

$ git grep post-receieve-email
 $ git grep post-receive-email
 templates/hooks--post-receive:#. /usr/share/doc/git-core/contrib/hooks/post-receive-email
 $

Signed-off-by: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

18 years ago

Andy Parkins

4557e0de5b

Reimplement emailing part of hooks--update in contrib/hooks/post-receive-email

The update hook is no longer the correct place to generate emails; there
is now the hooks/post-receive script which is run automatically after a
ref has been updated.

This patch is to make use of that new location, and to address some
faults in the old update hook.

The primary problem in the conversion was that in the update hook, the
ref has not actually been changed, but is about to be.  In the
post-receive hook the ref has already been updated.  That meant that
where we previously had lines like:

 git rev-list --not --all

would now give the wrong list because "--all" in the post-receive hook
includes the ref that we are making the email for.  This made it more
difficult to show only the new revisions added by this update.

The solution is not pretty; however it does work and doesn't need any
changes to git-rev-list itself.  It also fixes (more accurately: reduces
the likelihood of) a nasty race when another update occurs while this
script is running.  The solution, in short, looks like this (see the
source code for a longer explanation)

 git rev-parse --not --all | grep -v $(git rev-parse $refname) |
 git rev-list --pretty --stdin $oldrev..$newrev

This uses git-rev-parse followed by grep to filter out the revision of
the ref in question before it gets to rev-list and inhibits the output
of itself.  By using $(git rev-parse $revname) rather than $newrev as the
filter, it also takes care of the situation where another update to the
same ref has been made since $refname was $newrev.

The second problem that is addressed is that of tags inhibiting the
correct output of an update email.  Consider this, with somebranch and
sometag pointing at the same revision:

 git push origin somebranch
 git push origin sometag

That would work fine; the push of the branch would generate an email
containing all the new commits introduced by the update, then the push
of the tag would generate the shortlog formatted tag email.  Now
consider:

 git push origin sometag
 git push origin somebranch

When some branch comes to run its "--not --all" line, it will find
sometag, and filter those commits from the email - leaving nothing.
That meant that those commits would not show (in full) on any email.
The fix is to not use "--all", and instead use "--branches" in the
git-rev-parse command.

Other changes
 * Lose the monstrous one-giant-script layout and put things in easy to
   digest functions.  This makes it much easier to find the place you
   need to change if you wanted to customise the output.  I've also
   tried to write more verbose comments for the same reason.  The hook
   script is big, mainly because of all the different cases that it has
   to handle, so being easy to navigate is important.
 * All uses of "git-command" changed to "git command", to cope better
   if a user decided not to install all the hard links to git;
 * Cleaned up some of the English in the email
 * The fact that the receive hook makes the ref available also allows me
   to use Shawn Pearce's fantastic suggestion that an annotated tag can
   be parsed with git-for-each-ref.  This removes the potentially
   non-portable use of "<<<" heredocs and the nasty messing around with
   "date" to convert numbers of seconds UTC to a real date
 * Deletions are now caught and notified (briefly)
 * To help with debugging, I've retained the command line mode from the
   update hook; but made it so that the output is not emailed, it's just
   printed to the screen.  This could then be redirected if the user
   wanted
 * Removed the "Hello" from the beginning of the email - it's just
   noise, and no one seriously has their day made happier by "friendly"
   programs
 * The fact that it doesn't rely on repository state as an indicator any
   more means that it's far more stable in its output; hopefully the
   same arguments will always generate the same email - even if the
   repository changes in the future.  This means you can easily recreate
   an email should you want to.
 * Included Jim Meyering's envelope sender option for the sendmail call
 * The hook is now so big that it was inappropriate to copy it
   to every repository by keeping it in the templates directory.
   Instead, I've put a comment saying to look in contrib/hooks, and
   given an example of calling the script from that template hook.  The
   advantage of calling the script residing at some fixed location is
   that if a future package of git included a bug fixed version of the
   script, that would be picked up automatically, and the user would not
   have to notice and manually copy the new hook to every repository
   that uses it.

Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

18 years ago

3 Commits (b9d14ffbf1f42eb80231d0378dd2f019a162c054)