Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -230,6 +230,14 @@ or on the command line. If a username has been specified (with
> specified (with `--smtp-pass` or `sendemail.smtpPass`), then
> a password is obtained using 'git-credential'.
>
> +--smtp-passeval[=<command>]::
Lose the pair of [] that marks the value optional. Compare it with,
say, --smtp-user that is described as:
--smtp-user=<user>::
Username for SMTP-AUTH. Default is ...
because they are defined in %options (below) in a similar way, like
so:
> "smtp-user=s" => \$smtp_authuser,
> "smtp-pass:s" => \$smtp_authpass,
> + "smtp-passeval=s" => \$smtp_authpasseval,
> "smtp-ssl" => sub { $smtp_encryption = 'ssl' },
taking a string value =s that is not optional.
> + Generate password like OAuth2 token for SMTP AUTH. If specified,
> + it will use the output of the command specified as a password for
> + authentication.
> ++
> diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl
> index a18e978e22..cafb9aa43b 100755
> --- a/git-send-email.perl
> +++ b/git-send-email.perl
> @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ sub usage {
> --smtp-server-port <int> * Outgoing SMTP server port.
> --smtp-user <str> * Username for SMTP-AUTH.
> --smtp-pass <str> * Password for SMTP-AUTH; not necessary.
> + --smtp-passeval <str> * Path to script or a command to generate
> + password like OAuth2 token for SMTP-AUTH.
> --smtp-encryption <str> * tls or ssl; anything else disables.
> --smtp-ssl * Deprecated. Use '--smtp-encryption ssl'.
> --smtp-ssl-cert-path <str> * Path to ca-certificates (either directory or file).
Looking good.
> + # If smtpPassEval is set, run the user specified command to get the password
> + if (defined $smtp_authpasseval) {
> + printf __("Executing token generating script: %s\n"), $smtp_authpasseval;
> + chomp(my $generated_password = `$smtp_authpasseval 2>&1`);
How careful do we need to protect ourselves against a bad value in
this variable (like "rm -rf $HOME; password-command") ? Are we OK
with trusting that the command line and the configuration file are
not under control of an attacker? I am assuming it is OK, but you
folks have thought about this code path much longer than I have, so
I thought I should ask just to make sure.
Thanks.
