Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] gpg-interface: introduce new signature format "x509" using gpgsm
From: Henning Schild <hidden>
Date: 2018-07-11 09:18:57
Am Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:01:10 -0400 schrieb Jeff King [off-list ref]:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:52:30AM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt index c0bd80954..b6f9b47d5 100644 --- a/Documentation/config.txt +++ b/Documentation/config.txt@@ -1830,7 +1830,7 @@ gpg.program:: gpg.format:: Specifies which key format to use when signing with`--gpg-sign`. - Default is "openpgp", that is also the only supported value. + Default is "opengpg" and another possible value is "x509".opengpg?
Right, thanks!
Since we're having so much fun with naming discussions, let's talk about "x509". :) That's the cert format. I think of these signatures as S/MIME, but really that's the mail-oriented parts of the standard. I think technically this is "CMS". That said, we should pick what most people will find natural when referring to it. So maybe x509 isn't the worst choice, as I doubt most people know the term CMS. Probably the term they know _most_ is "gpgsm", but I think the point is that one does not have to be using gpgsm in the first place.
Ok, but now that you mention it, i will include the string "gpgsm" into Documentation/config.txt somewhere. Maybe other documentation bits could use hints that gpg is not the only kid in town anymore.
So I dunno. I think I talked myself back into x509. ;)
Ok, will stick to it. Henning
quoted
diff --git a/gpg-interface.c b/gpg-interface.c index 65098430f..bf8d567a4 100644 --- a/gpg-interface.c +++ b/gpg-interface.c@@ -16,13 +16,18 @@ struct gpg_format_data { #define PGP_SIGNATURE "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----" #define PGP_MESSAGE "-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----" +#define X509_SIGNATURE "-----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----" -enum gpgformats { PGP_FMT }; +enum gpgformats { PGP_FMT, X509_FMT }; struct gpg_format_data gpg_formats[] = { { .format = "openpgp", .program = "gpg", .extra_args_verify = { "--keyid-format=long" }, .sigs = { PGP_SIGNATURE, PGP_MESSAGE } }, + { .format = "x509", .program = "gpgsm", + .extra_args_verify = { NULL }, + .sigs = { X509_SIGNATURE, NULL } + },Extremely minor nit, but if there are no other uses of PGP_SIGNATURE etc outside of this array (as I hope there wouldn't be after this series), would it make more sense to just include the literals inline in the array definition? That's one less layer of indirection when somebody is reading the code. -Peff