-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 357
Cloning from new host via ssh causes spurious error rather than prompting for confirmation and succeeding #1408
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 1 commit
767abcf
4b24bf9
7859521
4898057
6eaa164
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ | ||
""" | ||
Module for executing SSH commands | ||
""" | ||
|
||
import re | ||
import subprocess | ||
import shutil | ||
from .log import get_logger | ||
from pathlib import Path | ||
|
||
GIT_SSH_HOST = re.compile(r"git@(.+):.+") | ||
|
||
|
||
class SSH: | ||
""" | ||
A class to perform ssh actions | ||
""" | ||
|
||
def is_known_host(self, hostname): | ||
""" | ||
Check if the given git clone URL contains a known host | ||
""" | ||
cmd = ["ssh-keygen", "-F", hostname.replace(" ", "")] | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is this for spaces at the beginning and end only? If so, why not There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for the suggestion, changed to There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks! |
||
try: | ||
code = subprocess.call( | ||
cmd, stdout=subprocess.DEVNULL, stderr=subprocess.DEVNULL | ||
) | ||
return code == 0 | ||
except subprocess.CalledProcessError as e: | ||
get_logger().debug("Error verifying host using keygen") | ||
raise e | ||
|
||
def add_host(self, hostname): | ||
""" | ||
Add the host to the known_hosts file | ||
""" | ||
get_logger().debug(f"adding host to the known hosts file {hostname}") | ||
try: | ||
result = subprocess.run( | ||
["ssh-keyscan", hostname], capture_output=True, text=True, check=True | ||
) | ||
known_hosts_file = f"{Path.home()}/.ssh/known_hosts" | ||
with open(known_hosts_file, "a") as f: | ||
f.write(result.stdout) | ||
get_logger().debug(f"Added {hostname} to known hosts.") | ||
except Exception as e: | ||
get_logger().error(f"Failed to add host: {e}.") | ||
raise e |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can this be implemented in a "ask for forgiveness, not for permission" manner? That is, run clone, and if it fails on host not known, prompt user to add host?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That could be done as well, the issue for me doing this at first is to know if the error message remains consistent in all systems so I can check it on client then prompt user, hence I did added the check before attempting to clone. Should I go ahead and do the approach you suggested anyway?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't know. It makes sense to me, don't know if it would make sense to the maintainers here.
Is it possible to somehow hook into the git/ssh/credential-helper stuff more tightly so that you aren't reduced to parsing user-facing messages on stdout to determine what's happening? If you'd have to do that, then current solution is way better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My reason for disliking the original implementation is that
does not say what I'm actually adding to my known hosts by clicking the button. Also it does not reveal the file location being modified, which IMO there should be, somewhere, possibly in a smaller grayer font, like a postscript, something like that.
Also, I dislike that the fingerprint is examined twice, first during the initial check and then during actual connection attempt. I do not see how this could be turned into something like time-of-check/time-of-use vulnerability, maybe it cannot, but if there is another better way found, I would prefer that one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the suggestion, changing the dialog body would require us to create a form for the dialog. Let me know if that way is a feasible one.Or I could also emit a notification after the host is added:
I could simply check the
known_hosts
file and see if a fingerprint is present there for a given host, this was my first try, but I want to avoid referent to this file due possible Windows incompatible, but I ended having to refer to this file directly anyway :/ Let me know if you that's a better approach and we can switch to it. Thanks!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I love that, thanks!