Re: [PATCH 2/6] connect: uniformize and group CONNECT_DIAG_URL handling code

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

git://host:[port]/path/to/repo
Knowing that, the "@" will be feed into the name resolver,
and that's OK.

Is it OK?  It is plausible that our client side may even want to
accept git://user:pass@host:port/local/part, and as an anonymous
service, allow it to go to git://host:port/local/part without
sending user:pass part over the wire.  Or with the same knowledge
that git:// is an anonymous service, it is also a plausible policy
to error such a request out.  To implement either needs a robust
parsing of the URL, doesn't it?

To put it differently, there is a vast difference between

 (1) knowing that xx@git.kernel.org is asking to access
     git.kernel.org as user 'xx' and failing because of a policy
     that says "we do not send auth material over the wire when we
     know we are doing anonymous access"; and

 (2) not caring the distinction between xx@git.kernel.org and
     git.kernel.org, and implicitly relying on the DNS to forbid '@'
     in the hostname and to return a look-up failure when the whole
     string of the former is taken as a hostname in order to fail
     that request.

If we want to fail the request, we should be in control of the
policy to fail.  Even in an unlikely (and impossible) world where
suddenly resolver starts allowing "xx@git.kernel.org" as a host, we
do not want to be making a connection to a bogus host that is not
what the end user requested, i.e. git.kernel.org.

Otherwise we cannot change the policy to allow it in the future if
it turns out to be necessary.