Summary:
Ref T4189. T4189 describes most of the intent here:
- When updating hosted repositories, sync a pre-commit hook into them instead of doing a `git fetch`.
- The hook calls into Phabricator. The acting Phabricator user is sent via PHABRICATOR_USER in the environment. The active repository is sent via CLI.
- The hook doesn't do anything useful yet; it just veifies basic parameters, does a little parsing, and exits 0 to allow the commit.
Test Plan:
- Performed Git pushes and pulls over SSH and HTTP.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4189
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7682
Summary:
Ref T2230. When fully set up, we have up to three users who all need to write into the repositories:
- The webserver needs to write for HTTP receives.
- The SSH user needs to write for SSH receives.
- The daemons need to write for "git fetch", "git clone", etc.
These three users don't need to be different, but in practice they are often not likely to all be the same user. If for no other reason, making them all the same user requires you to "git clone httpd@host.com", and installs are likely to prefer "git clone git@host.com".
Using three different users also allows better privilege separation. Particularly, the daemon user can be the //only// user with write access to the repositories. The webserver and SSH user can accomplish their writes through `sudo`, with a whitelisted set of commands. This means that even if you compromise the `ssh` user, you need to find a way to escallate from there to the daemon user in order to, e.g., write arbitrary stuff into the repository or bypass commit hooks.
This lays some of the groundwork for a highly-separated configuration where the SSH and HTTP users have the fewest privileges possible and use `sudo` to interact with repositories. Some future work which might make sense:
- Make `bin/phd` respect this (require start as the right user, or as root and drop privileges, if this configuration is set).
- Execute all `git/hg/svn` commands via sudo?
Users aren't expected to configure this yet so I haven't written any documentation.
Test Plan:
Added an SSH user ("dweller") and gave it sudo by adding this to `/etc/sudoers`:
dweller ALL=(epriestley) SETENV: NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/git-upload-pack, /usr/bin/git-receive-pack
Then I ran git pushes and pulls over SSH via "dweller@localhost". They successfully interacted with the repository on disk as the "epriestley" user.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2230
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7589
Summary:
Small step forward which improves existing stuff or lays groudwork for future stuff:
- Currently, to check for email verification, we have to single-query the email address on every page. Instead, denoramlize it into the user object.
- Migrate all the existing users.
- When the user verifies an email, mark them as `isEmailVerified` if the email is their primary email.
- Just make the checks look at the `isEmailVerified` field.
- Add a new check, `isUserActivated()`, to cover email-verified plus disabled. Currently, a non-verified-but-not-disabled user could theoretically use Conduit over SSH, if anyone deployed it. Tighten that up.
- Add an `isApproved` flag, which is always true for now. In a future diff, I want to add a default-on admin approval queue for new accounts, to prevent configuration mistakes. The way it will work is:
- When the queue is enabled, registering users are created with `isApproved = false`.
- Admins are sent an email, "[Phabricator] New User Approval (alincoln)", telling them that a new user is waiting for approval.
- They go to the web UI and approve the user.
- Manually-created accounts are auto-approved.
- The email will have instructions for disabling the queue.
I think this queue will be helpful for new installs and give them peace of mind, and when you go to disable it we have a better opportunity to warn you about exactly what that means.
Generally, I want to improve the default safety of registration, since if you just blindly coast through the path of least resistance right now your install ends up pretty open, and realistically few installs are on VPNs.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration, verified `isEmailVerified` populated correctly.
- Created a new user, checked DB for verified (not verified).
- Verified, checked DB (now verified).
- Used Conduit, People, Diffusion.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7572
Summary:
Ref T2230. As far as I can tell, getting SVN working over HTTP is incredibly complicated. It's all DAV-based and doesn't appear to have any kind of binary we can just execute and pass requests through to. Don't support it for now.
- Disable it in the UI.
- Make sure all the error messages are reasonable.
Test Plan: Tried to HTTP an SVN repo. Tried to clone a Git repo with SVN, got a good error message.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2230
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7562
Summary:
Ref T2230. This is substantially more complicated than Git, but mostly because Mercurial's protocol is a like 50 ad-hoc extensions cobbled together. Because we must decode protocol frames in order to determine if a request is read or write, 90% of this is implementing a stream parser for the protocol.
Mercurial's own parser is simpler, but relies on blocking reads. Since we don't even have methods for blocking reads right now and keeping the whole thing non-blocking is conceptually better, I made the parser nonblocking. It ends up being a lot of stuff. I made an effort to cover it reasonably well with unit tests, and to make sure we fail closed (i.e., reject requests) if there are any parts of the protocol I got wrong.
A lot of the complexity is sharable with the HTTP stuff, so it ends up being not-so-bad, just very hard to verify by inspection as clearly correct.
Test Plan:
- Ran `hg clone` over SSH.
- Ran `hg fetch` over SSH.
- Ran `hg push` over SSH, to a read-only repo (error) and a read-write repo (success).
Reviewers: btrahan, asherkin
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2230
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7553
Summary: Ref T2230. Fixes T4079. As it turns out, this is Git being weird. See comments for some detials about what's going on here.
Test Plan: Created shallow and deep Git clones.
Reviewers: hach-que, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4079, T2230
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7554
Summary: Ref T2230. This is easily the worst thing I've had to write in a while. I'll leave some notes inline.
Test Plan: Ran `hg clone http://...` on a hosted repo. Ran `hg push` on the same. Changed sync'd both ways.
Reviewers: asherkin, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2230
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7520
Summary: This is starting to get a bit sizable and it turns out Mercurial is sort of a beast, so split the VCS serve stuff into a separate controller.
Test Plan: Pushed and pulled an authenticated Git repository.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7494
