receive-pack: do not overallocate command structure

An "update" command in the protocol exchange consists of 40-hex old
object name, SP, 40-hex new object name, SP, and a refname, but the
first instance is further followed by a NUL with feature requests.

The command structure, which has a flex-array member that stores the
refname at the end, was allocated based on the whole length of the
update command, without excluding the trailing feature requests.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
receive-pack: parse feature request a bit earlier

Ideally, we should have also allowed the first "shallow" to carry
the feature request trailer, but that is water under the bridge
now.  This makes the next step to factor out the queuing of commands
easier to review.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
receive-pack: do not reuse old_sha1[] to other things

This piece of code reads object names of shallow boundaries,
not old_sha1[].

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
receive-pack: factor out queueing of command

Make a helper function to accept a line of a protocol message and
queue an update command out of the code from read_head_info().

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: move REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE logic a bit higher

20e8b465 (refactor ref status logic for pushing, 2010-01-08)
restructured the code to set status for each ref to be pushed, but
did not quite go far enough.  We inspect the status set earlier by
set_refs_status_for_push() and then perform yet another update to
the status of a ref with an otherwise OK status to be deleted to
mark it with REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE when the protocol tells us
never to delete.

Split the latter into a separate loop that comes before we enter the
per-ref loop.  This way we would have one less condition to check in
the main loop.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: refactor decision to send update per ref

A new helper function ref_update_to_be_sent() decides for each ref
if the update is to be sent based on the status previously set by
set_ref_status_for_push() and also if this is a mirrored push.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: always send capabilities

We tried to avoid sending one extra byte, NUL and nothing behind it
to signal there is no protocol capabilities being sent, on the first
command packet on the wire, but it just made the code look ugly.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: factor out capability string generation

A run of 'var ? " var" : ""' fed to a long printf string in a deeply
nested block was hard to read.  Move it outside the loop and format
it into a strbuf.

As an added bonus, the trick to add "agent=<agent-name>" by using
two conditionals is replaced by a more readable version.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: rename "new_refs" to "need_pack_data"

The variable counts how many non-deleting command is being sent, but
is only checked with 0-ness to decide if we need to send the pack
data.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: refactor inspecting and resetting status and sending commands

The main loop over remote_refs list inspects the ref status
to see if we need to generate pack data (i.e. a delete-only push
does not need to send any additional data), resets it to "expecting
the status report" state, and formats the actual update commands
to be sent.

Split the former two out of the main loop, as it will become
conditional in later steps.

Besides, we should have code that does real thing here, before the
"Finally, tell the other end!" part ;-)

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: clarify that cmds_sent is a boolean

We use it to make sure that the feature request is sent only once on
the very first request packet (ignoring the "shallow " line, which
was an unfortunate mistake we cannot retroactively fix with existing
receive-pack already deployed in the field) and we set it to "true"
with cmds_sent++, not because we care about the actual number of
updates sent but because it is merely an old idiomatic way.

Set it explicitly to one to clarify that the code that uses this
variable only cares about its zero-ness.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
gpg-interface: move parse_gpg_output() to where it should be

Earlier, ffb6d7d5 (Move commit GPG signature verification to
commit.c, 2013-03-31) moved this helper that used to be in pretty.c
(i.e. the output code path) to commit.c for better reusability.

It was a good first step in the right direction, but still suffers a
myopic view that commits will be the only thing we would ever want
to sign---we would actually want to be able to reuse it even wider.

The function interprets what GPG said; gpg-interface is obviously a
better place.  Move it there.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
gpg-interface: move parse_signature() to where it should be

Our signed-tag objects set the standard format used by Git to store
GPG-signed payload (i.e. the payload followed by its detached
signature), and it made sense to have a helper to find the boundary
between the payload and its signature in tag.c back then.

Newer code added later to parse other kinds of objects that learned
to use the same format to store GPG-signed payload (e.g. signed
commits), however, kept using the helper from the same location.

Move it to gpg-interface; the helper is no longer about signed tag,
but it is how our code and data interact with GPG.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
pack-protocol doc: typofix for PKT-LINE

Everywhere else we use PKT-LINE to denote the pkt-line formatted
data, but "shallow/deepen" messages are described with PKT_LINE().

Fix them.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
the beginning of the signed push

While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed
came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to
assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a
particular branch.  My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call
the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my
'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint'.

Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate"
(for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that
what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point
at what other object.  Think of it as a cryptographic protection for
ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an
orthogonal axis.

The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this:

 1. You push out your work with "git push -s".

 2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual,
    together with what protocol extension the receiving end
    supports.  If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol
    extension "push-cert", the sending side falls back to the normal
    push that is not signed.

    Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is
    prepared in core:

	certificate version 0.1
	pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700

	7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master
	3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next

    Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of
    the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how
    the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref
    updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object
    name, the push certificate also protects against replaying).  It
    is expected that new command packet types other than the
    old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the
    same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in
    unsigned pushes.

    The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG,
    formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed,
    and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack).

    In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the
    sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in
    turn comes before it sends the pack data.

 3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate
    is written out as a blob.  The pre-receive hook can learn about
    the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable,
    which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make
    the decision to allow or reject this push.  Additionally, the
    post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be
    a good place to log all the received certificates for later
    audits.

Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual
command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter
when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead.
This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to
review (in other words, the series at this step should never be
released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an
interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one,
merely for reviewing purposes).  As such, the documentation update
for the protocol is left out of this step.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
receive-pack: GPG-validate push certificates

Reusing the GPG signature check helpers we already have, verify
the signature in receive-pack and give the results to the hooks
via GIT_PUSH_CERT_{SIGNER,KEY,STATUS} environment variables.

Policy decisions, such as accepting or rejecting a good signature by
a key that is not fully trusted, is left to the hook and kept
outside of the core.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
send-pack: send feature request on push-cert packet

We would want to update the interim protocol so that we do not send
the usual update commands when the push certificate feature is in
use, as the same information is in the certificate.  Once that
happens, the push-cert packet may become the only protocol command,
but then there is no packet to put the feature request behind, like
we always did.

As we have prepared the receiving end that understands the push-cert
feature to accept the feature request on the first protocol packet
(other than "shallow ", which was an unfortunate historical mistake
that has to come before everything else), we can give the feature
request on the push-cert packet instead of the first update protocol
packet, in preparation for the next step to actually update to the
final protocol.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
signed push: final protocol update

With the interim protocol, we used to send the update commands even
though we already send a signed copy of the same information when
push certificate is in use.  Update the send-pack/receive-pack pair
not to do so.

The notable thing on the receive-pack side is that it makes sure
that there is no command sent over the traditional protocol packet
outside the push certificate.  Otherwise a pusher can claim to be
pushing one set of ref updates in the signed certificate while
issuing commands to update unrelated refs, and such an update will
evade later audits.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>