Summary: Ref T4189. Fixes T2066. Mercurial has a //lot// of hooks so I'm not 100% sure this is all we need to install (we may need separate hooks for tags/bookmarks) but it should cover most of what we're after at least.
Test Plan:
- `bin/repository pull`'d a Mercurial repo and got a hook install.
- Pushed to a Mercurial repository over SSH and HTTP, with good/bad hooks. Saw hooks fire.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2066, T4189
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7685
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:
Ref T2230. The SVN protocol has a sensible protocol format with a good spec here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_svn/protocol
Particularly, compare this statement to the clown show that is the Mercurial wire protocol:
> It is possible to parse an item without knowing its type in advance.
WHAT A REASONABLE STATEMENT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ABOUT A WIRE PROTOCOL
Although it makes substantially more sense than Mercurial, it's much heavier-weight than the Git or Mercurial protocols, since it isn't distributed.
It's also not possible to figure out if a request is a write request (or even which repository it is against) without proxying some of the protocol frames. Finally, several protocol commands embed repository URLs, and we need to reach into the protocol and translate them.
Test Plan: Ran various SVN commands over SSH (`svn log`, `svn up`, `svn commit`, etc).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2230
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7556
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
