[darcs-users] darcs patch: Revert --restrict-paths removal. (and 2 more)

[David Caldwell]

On 1/5/09 10:56 AM +0000 Eric Kow wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:36:09 -0800, David Caldwell wrote:
>> I have a few fake darcs repos in the test section of a perl module I'm
>> writing. I want to be able to test the module without having darcs
>> installed so that the CPAN automated testers can do it for me.
>
> So, I'm still not 100% sure I understand here.  Does this mean the only
> thing you are really interested in is to be able to create patches with
> _darcs in them?  Explicitly relative patches and patches with ".." in
> their paths, presumably would still actually be malicious in your eyes?

Yes, in my particular use case I have patches with "_darcs" somewhere in 
the path name ("./t/darcs-old/_darcs"), though notably not in the first 
path component.

Speaking in general, I'm not sure why having "_darcs" anywhere other than 
the first component of the path would be malicious, but maybe I'm just not 
thinking deviously enough.

I still think it's reasonable to reject "..".

This seems like a pretty rare edge case so I'm ok with the way it is now--I 
will just add the "--dont-restrict-paths" option when I get the error. I 
don't intend to mess with those nested test repos much so I doubt it will 
come up too often in my future (famous last words). If I were heavily 
editing them all the time it might make sense to have a whitelist feature 
like Florent suggested, or to change up the definition of is_malicious_path 
like I suggested.

-David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090105/c8cfb76e/attachment.pgp