Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC/PATCH] connect: add GIT_SSH_{SEND,RECEIVE}{,_COMMAND} env variables

On Thu, Jan 04 2018, Jeff King jotted:

> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:08:28AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Hopefully this is clearer, and depending on how the rest of the
>> discussion goes I'll submit v2 with something like this in the commit
>> message:
>> SSH keys A and B are known to the remote service, and used to identify
>> two different users.
>> A can only push to repository X, and B can only fetch from repository Y.
>> Thus, if you have a script that does:
>>     GIT_SSH_COMMAND="ssh -i A -i B" git ...
>> It'll always fail for pulling from X, and pushing to Y. Supply:
>>     GIT_SSH_COMMAND="ssh -i B -i A" git ...
>> And now pulling will work, but pushing won't.
> I get that you may have two different keys to go with two different
> identities on a remote system. But I'm not sure I understand why
> "sending" or "receiving" is the right way to split those up. Wouldn't
> you also sometimes want to fetch from repository X? IOW, wouldn't you
> want to tie identity "A" to repository "X", and "B" to repository "Y?

That's badly explained, sorry, when I say "push" I mean "push and/or

I don't know about Github, but on Gitlab when you provision a deploy key
and associate it with a repo it must be *globally* rw or ro, there's no
way to on a per-repo basis say it should be rw ro.

I have a job that's fetching a bunch of repos to review code in them
(for auditing purposes). It then commits the results of that review to
other git repos.

Thus I want to have a ro key to all those reviewed repos, but rw keys to
the audit repo itself (and it'll also pull with the rw key).

Hence this patch, I thought *maybe* others would be interested in this
since it seems to me to be an easy thing to run into with these ssh-key
based hosting providers, but maybe not.

>> So now I just have a GIT_SSH_COMMAND that dispatches to different keys
>> depending on the operation, as noted in the commit message, and I can
>> assure you that without that logic it doesn't work.
> You mentioned host aliases later, which is the solution I've seen in the
> wild. And then you can map each remote to a different host alias.