Syntax for authz with wildcards [was: svn commit: r1614080 ...]

[Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>]

(Just re-posting with a decent subject line so other people can see it.)

- Julian

Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 29.07.2014 12:25, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Brane wrote:
>>>>     [*/projects/f*/include/*.h]
>>>>     [*/projects/*o/include/*.h]
>>> 
>>> (Ugh, I don't like the prefix '*' which I think you're using to mean
>>> 'wildcards enabled'.)
>> 
>> I don't care what prefix we use, but I do care that the rules that contain
>> wildcards have a different syntax than the rules that do not. Otherwise,
>> existing authz files (that may contain literal wildcard/pattern characters)
>> would stop working.
>> 
>> We currently support two forms of patterns:
>> 
>>     [/literal-fspath]
>>     [repos:/literal-fspath]
>> 
>> the distinguishing feature is that in both cases, the literal-fspath must
>> begin with a slash, otherwise the rule is invalid. If we want to support
>> wildcards, we have to invent a different syntax for wildcard rules. My
>> working proposal is to add a literal '*' before the leading slash in the
>> path:
>> 
>>     [*/fspath-pattern]
>>     [repos:*/fspath-pattern]
>> 
>> because neither of these syntaxes are currently valid. We can invent a
>> different syntax, as long as it maintains that property; and we cannot
>> replace the brackets around the rule with something else, without making
>> very intrusive changes in the config parser code.
> 
> Another approach might be to add an "options" section to the authz
> file (in a way that it is ignored by older servers), where one could
> specify a matching strategy (and if needed 'priority' strategy and so
> on).
> 
> [options]
> matching = literal | basic-wildcards | regex | ...
> 
> Then it's not hidden as a syntax-artifact, but more explicit ...