Right, understood. So 'hiding path" is not wording that mod_authz_svn can
use, but we can come up with some authz-specific wording that's different
from the current "access denied," right?
On 20 Jan 2015 12:54, "Ivan Zhakov" <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 14:15, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On 19.01.2015 18:10, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> >> I've implemented proposed behavior in r1653032.
> >>
> >> On 18 January 2015 at 06:48, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
> >>> It would be nice if the the logged message should be different in that
> >>> case, too. That is: there should be some indication, besides the
> >>> different log level, that the subrequest-generated log event is
> >>> "normal".
> >>>
> >>> That is, we don't want this:
> >>>
> >>> [debug] Access denied: /private
> >>> [error] Access denied: /private
> >>>
> >>> But this:
> >>>
> >>> [debug] Hiding directory '/private' (Access denied)
> >>> [error] Access denied: /private
> >>>
> >>> (Or some other log level instead of "debug" — I haven't thought about
> >>> what log level would be appropriate.)
> >> I agree that different log message would be nice to have, but there is
> >> an issue: in mod_authz_svn we're not 100% sure that path will be
> >> hidden. mod_authz_svn just answer the question whether access allowed
> >> or not, but it doesn't know how this information will be used latter
> >> at mod_dav_svn layer. May be different wording may fix this issue
> >> though.
> >
> > I'm confused: when/why would mod_dav_svn ignore the result of an authz
> > check?
> >
> I meant that hiding unreadable path is not only possible behavior for
> mod_dav_svn. For example it may error out if it got unreadable path.
> For example get-locks-report: attempt to get lock for unreadable path
> will result requested failure (subversion\mod_dav_svn\lock.c:470). IMO
> logging "Hiding path" will be confusing for user.
>
>
> --
> Ivan Zhakov
> CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
>
Received on 2015-01-20 13:14:20 CET