4.2 KiB
authentication versus authorisation
This document will explain why an "ssh issue" is almost never a "gitolite issue", and, indirectly, why I dont get too excited about the former.
Note: for actual ssh troubleshooting see [this][ssh-troubleshooting].
Here is a fundamental point: Gitolite does not do authentication. It only does authorisation.
So first, let's loosely define these words:
Authentication is the process of verifying that you are who you claim to be. An authentication system will establish that I am the user "sitaram" on my work system. The one behind gmail will similarly establish that I am "sitaramc". And so on...
Authorisation is the process of asking what you want to do and deciding if you're allowed to do it or not.
Now, if you managed to read about [gitolite and ssh][gitolite-and-ssh], you know that gitolite is meant to be invoked as:
/full/path/to/gl-auth-command some-authenticated-gitolite-username
(where the "gitolite username" is a "virtual" username; it does not have to be, and usually isn't, an actual unix username).
As you can see, authentication happens before gitolite is called.
but... but... you have all that ssh stuff in there!
The default mode of using gitolite does use ssh keys, but all it's doing is helping you setup ssh-based authentication as a convenience to you.
You don't have to use it, though. And many people don't. The examples I know
are [smart http][http], and ldap-backed sshd. In both cases, gitolite has no
role to play in creating users, setting up their passwords/keys, etc. There's
even a GL_NO_SETUP_AUTHKEYS option to make sure gitolite doesn't meddle with
the authkeys file in such installations.
so you're basically saying you won't support "X"
(where "X" is some ssh related behaviour change or feature)
Well, if it's not a security issue I probably won't. I'm willing to change my mind if enough people convince me they need it. (There's a mailing list if you want to find others who also need the same thing.)
While we're on the subject, locking someone out is not a security issue. Even if you locked yourself (the admin) out, the docs tell you how to recover from such errors. You do need some password based method to get a shell command line on the server, of course.
appendix: how to use other authentication systems with gitolite
The bottom line in terms of how to invoke gitolite has been described above, and as long as you manage to do that gitolite won't even know how the authentication was done. Which in turn means you can use whatever authentication scheme you want.
It also expects the SSH_ORIGINAL_COMMAND environment variable to contain the
full command (typically starting with git-receive-pack or git-upload-pack)
that the client sent. Also, when using [smart http][http], things are somewhat
different: gitolite uses certain environment variables that it expects httpd
to have set up. Even the user name comes from the REMOTE_USER environment
variable instead of as a command line argument in this case.
However, it has to be an authentication system that is compatible with sshd or
httpd in some form. Why? Because the git client accessing the server only
knows those 2 protocols to "speak git". (Well, the git:// protocol is
unauthenticated, and file:// doesn't really apply to this discussion, so
we're ignoring those).
For example, let's say you have an LDAP-based authentication system somewhere.
It is possible to make apache use that to authenticate users, so when a user
accesses a git url using http://sitaram:password@git.example.com/repo, it is
LDAP that does the actual authentication. [I wouldn't know how to do it but I
know it is possible. Patches to this doc explaining how are welcome!]
There are also ssh daemons that use LDAP to store the authorised keys (instead
of putting them all in ~/.ssh/authorized_keys). The clients will still need
to generate keypairs and send them to the admin, but they can be more
centrally stored and perhaps used by other programs or tools simultaneously,
which can be useful.
Finally, gitolite allows you to store group information externally too. See [here][ldap] for more on this.