-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.8k
Mark parameters in bundled extensions as sensitive #8352
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
Conversation
82c5570
to
02fa773
Compare
Anyone has an idea why this fails the one job on AppVeyor?
The output matches the one of |
20873d0
to
3ebbf0e
Compare
May I suggest that we add the Ideally by generally introducing attributes to stub file processing, without hard dependency on zend_ce_sensitive_parameter. |
@bwoebi Apparently supporting full-blown attributes is hard: And even just supported “sensitive parameters” from the stubs is non-trivial: https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/54346688#54346688 I've intentionally requested Ilija's review, because he was looking into adding stub support. |
@TimWolla FWIW @kocsismate agrees that this should be in the stubs and he'll have a look when he has time. |
Yeah, I agreed initially and I agree even more after creating this PR. I've marked the PR as a draft for the time being, until the stub support is ready. |
There are cases where only a subset of the string is sensitive (ODBC and Postgres connection strings). How would this be able to handle that? |
A parameter can only be marked as sensitive in full. If those connection strings include passwords, then they should likely be marked as sensitive (especially since a username or hostname might also be considered sensitive by some users). |
Looks like the stub support was merged. |
No, not yet :) But now that I merged my huge stub related PR, I can work on the stub support of attributes without having conflicts. I'll start it early June. |
Sounds good. Feature freeze for 8.2 is 19 July. ;-) |
49af7f0
to
ab63945
Compare
5d1dfc7
to
6960dd1
Compare
Squashed the fixup commits without modifying the base commit: Then rebased the squashed commits onto the latest master, while dropping the zend_test changes: |
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.
The selected params look good to me.
No changes to the stubs required, password_hash and password_verify were added to the initial version of the stub support.
6534d1f
to
67dad58
Compare
Thanks for the reviews. Rebased on the latest master to fix the merge conflict. Once CI passes: How would this PR be appropriately merged? Is the "Rebase and merge" button on GitHub fine for this? |
I'd be fine with just squashing all the commits into one. But if you liked a more fine-grained commit history, then feel free to "rebase and merge". |
Yes, I believe it is useful to have this split per extension, similarly to your other Stub changes for the constants. Merged now, thanks again! |
No description provided.