Today we’re announcing the next major release of Git LFS: v2.0.0.
The official release notes have the complete list of all the new features, performance improvements, and more. In the meantime, here’s our look at a few of our newest features:
With Git LFS 2.0.0 you can now lock files that you’re actively working on, preventing others from pushing to the Git LFS server until you unlock the files again.
This will prevent merge conflicts as well as lost work on non-mergeable files at the filesystem level. While it may seem to contradict the distributed and parallel nature of Git, file locking is an important part of many software development workflows—particularly for larger teams working with binary assets.
# This tells LFS to track *.tga files and make them lockable. # They will appear as read-only on the filesystem. $ git lfs track "*.tga" --lockable # To acquire the lock and make foo.tga writeable: $ git lfs lock foo.tga # foo.tga is now writeable $ git add foo.tga $ git commit ... $ git push # Once you're ready to stop work, release the file so others can work on it. $ git lfs unlock foo.tga
Git LFS v2.0.0 also comes with a host of other great features, bug fixes, and other changes.
Our transfer queue, the mechanism responsible for uploading and downloading files, is faster, more efficient, and more resilient to failure.
To dive in, visit our release notes to learn more.
Git LFS has tremendously improved internals, particularly in Git and filesystem operations.
pull operations have been optimized to run concurrently with the underlying tree scans necessary to detect LFS objects. Repositories with large trees can begin the
pull operation immediately, while the tree scan takes place, greatly reducing the amount of time it takes to complete these operations.
The mechanism that scans for files tracked by LFS has been enhanced to ignore directories included in your repository’s
.gitignore, improving the efficiency of these operations.
In Git LFS v1.5.0, we introduced the
process filter (along with changes in Git v2.11) to dramatically improve performance across multiple platforms, thanks to contributions from @larsxschneider.
Since its release, Git LFS has benefited from the contributions of 81 members of the open source community. There have been 1,008 pull-requests, 851 of which have been merged into an official release. Git LFS would not be possible without the gracious efforts of our wonderful contributors. Special thanks to @sinbad who contributed to our work on file locking.
File locking is an early release, so we’re eager to hear your feedback and thoughts on how the feature should work.
Starting January 31, 2017, the Delegated Account Recovery feature will let you associate your GitHub account with your Facebook account, giving you a way back into GitHub in certain two-factor authentication lockout scenarios. If you’ve lost your phone or have otherwise lost the ability to use your phone or token without a usable backup, you can recover your account through Facebook and get back to work. See how the new recovery feature works on the GitHub Engineering Blog.
Currently, if you lose the ability to authenticate with your phone or token, you have to prove account ownership before we can disable two-factor authentication. Proving ownership requires access to a confirmed email address and a valid SSH private key for a given account. This feature will provide an alternative proof of account ownership that can be used along with these other methods.
To set up the new recovery option, save a token on the security settings page on GitHub. Then confirm that you’d like store the token. If you get locked out for any reason, you can contact GitHub Support, log in to Facebook, and start the recovery process.
The GitHub Bug Bounty Program is turning three years old. To celebrate, we’re offering bigger bounties for the most severe bugs found in January and February.
The process is the same as always: hackers and security researchers find and report vulnerabilities through our responsible disclosure process. To recognize the effort these researchers put forth, we reward them with actual money. Standard bounties range between $500 and $10,000 USD and are determined at our discretion, based on overall severity. In January and February we’re throwing in bonus rewards for standout individual reports in addition to the usual payouts.
In addition to cash prizes, we’ve also made limited edition t-shirts to thank you for helping us hunt down GitHub bugs. We don’t have enough for everyone—just for the 15 submitters with the most severe bugs.
GitHub Enterprise is now included in the bounty program. So go ahead and find some Enterprise bugs. If they’re big enough you’ll be eligible for the promotional bounty. Otherwise, rewards are the same as GitHub.com ($200 to $10,000 USD). For more details, visit our bounty site.
Giving winners some extra cash doesn’t mean anyone has to lose. If you find a bug, you’ll still receive the standard bounties.
On Thursday, October 20th, a bug in GitHub’s system exposed a small amount of user data via Git pulls and clones. In total, 156 private repositories of GitHub.com users were affected (including one of GitHub’s). We have notified everyone affected by this private repository disclosure, so if you have not heard from us, your repositories were not impacted and there is no ongoing risk to your information.
This was not an attack, and no one was able to retrieve vulnerable data intentionally. There was no outsider involved in exposing this data; this was a programming error that resulted in a small number of Git requests retrieving data from the wrong repositories.
Regardless of whether or not this incident impacted you specifically, we want to sincerely apologize. It’s our responsibility not only to keep your information safe but also to protect the trust you have placed in us. GitHub would not exist without your trust, and we are deeply sorry that this incident occurred.
Below is the technical analysis of our investigation, including a high-level overview of the incident, how we mitigated it, and the specific measures we are taking to safeguard against incidents like this from happening in the future.
In order to speed up unicorn worker boot times, and simplify the post-fork boot code, we applied the following buggy patch:
The database connections in our rails application are split into three pools: a read-only group, a group used by Spokes (our distributed Git back-end), and the normal Active Record connection pool. The read-only group and the Spokes group are managed manually, by our own connection handling code. This meant the pool was shared between all child processes of the rails application when running using the change. The new line of code disconnected only
ConnectionPool objects that are managed by Active Record, whereas the previous snippet would disconnect all
ConnectionPool objects held in memory.
The impact of this bug for most queries was a malformed response, which errored and caused a near immediate rollback. However, a very small percentage of the queries responses were interpreted as legitimate data in the form of the file server and disk path where repository data was stored. Some repository requests were routed to the location of another repository. The application could not differentiate these incorrect query results from legitimate ones, and as a result, users received data that they were not meant to receive.
When properly functioning, the system works as sketched out roughly below. However, during this failure window, the MySQL response in step 4 was returning malformed data that would end up causing the git proxy to return data from the wrong file server and path.
Our analysis of the ten-minute window in question uncovered:
After establishing the effects of the bug, we set out to determine which requests were affected in this way for the duration of the deploy. Normally, this would be an easy task, as we have an in-house monitor for Git that logs every repository access. However, those logs contained some of the same faulty data that led to the misrouted requests in the first place. Without accurate usernames or repository names in our primary Git logs, we had to turn to data that our git proxy and git-daemon processes sent to syslog. In short, the goal was to join records from the proxy, to git-daemon, to our primary Git logging, drawing whatever data was accurate from each source. Correlating records across servers and data sources is a challenge because the timestamps differ depending on load, latency, and clock skew. In addition, a given Git request may be rejected at the proxy or by git-daemon before it reaches Git, leaving records in the proxy logs that don’t correlate with any records in the git-daemon or Git logs.
Ultimately, we joined the data from the proxy to our Git logging system using timestamps, client IPs, and the number of bytes transferred and then to git-daemon logs using only timestamps. In cases where a record in one log could join several records in another log, we considered all and took the worst-case choice. We were able to identify cases where the repository a user requested, which was recorded correctly at our git proxy, did not match the repository actually sent, which was recorded correctly by git-daemon.
We further examined the number of bytes sent for a given request. In many cases where incorrect data was sent, the number of bytes was far larger than the on-disk size of the repository that was requested but instead closely matched the size of the repository that was sent. This gave us further confidence that indeed some repositories were disclosed in full to the wrong users.
Although we saw over 100 misrouted fetches and clones, we saw no misrouted pushes, signaling that the integrity of the data was unaffected. This is because a Git push operation takes place in two steps: first, the user uploads a pack file containing files and commits. Then we update the repository’s refs (branch tips) to point to commits in the uploaded pack file. These steps look like a single operation from the user’s point of view, but within our infrastructure, they are distinct. To corrupt a Git push, we would have to misroute both steps to the same place. If only the pack file is misrouted, then no refs will point to it, and git fetch operations will not fetch it. If only the refs update is misrouted, it won’t have any pack file to point to and will fail. In fact, we saw two pack files misrouted during the incident. They were written to a temporary directory in the wrong repositories. However, because the refs-update step wasn’t routed to the same incorrect repository, the stray pack files were never visible to the user and were cleaned up (i.e., deleted) automatically the next time those repositories performed a “git gc” garbage-collection operation. So no permanent or user-visible effect arose from any misrouted push.
A misrouted Git pull or clone operation consists of several steps. First, the user connects to one of our Git proxies, via either SSH or HTTPS (we also support git-protocol connections, but no private data was disclosed that way). The user’s Git client requests a specific repository and provides credentials, an SSH key or an account password, to the Git proxy. The Git proxy checks the user’s credentials and confirms that the user has the ability to read the repository he or she has requested. At this point, if the Git proxy gets an unexpected response from its MySQL connection, the authentication (which user is it?) or authorization (what can they access?) check will simply fail and return an error. Many users were told during the incident that their repository access “was disabled due to excessive resource use.”
In the operations that disclosed repository data, the authentication and authorization step succeeded. Next, the Git proxy performs a routing query to see which file server the requested repository is on, and what its file system path on that server will be. This is the step where incorrect results from MySQL led to repository disclosures. In a small fraction of cases, two or more routing queries ran on the same Git proxy at the same time and received incorrect results. When that happened, the Git proxy got a file server and path intended for another request coming through that same proxy. The request ended up routed to an intact location for the wrong repository. Further, the information that was logged on the repository access was a mix of information from the repository the user requested and the repository the user actually got. These corrupted logs significantly hampered efforts to discover the extent of the disclosures.
Once the Git proxy got the wrong route, it forwarded the user’s request to git-daemon and ultimately Git, running in the directory for someone else’s repository. If the user was retrieving a specific branch, it generally did not exist, and the pull failed. But if the user was pulling or cloning all branches, that is what they received: all the commits and file objects reachable from all branches in the wrong repository. The user (or more often, their build server) might have been expecting to download one day’s commits and instead received some other repository’s entire history.
Users who inadvertently fetched the entire history of some other repository, surprisingly, may not even have noticed. A subsequent “git pull” would almost certainly have been routed to the right place and would have corrected any overwritten branches in the user’s working copy of their Git repository. The unwanted remote references and tags are still there, though. Such a user can delete the remote references, run “git remote prune origin,” and manually delete all the unwanted tags. As a possibly simpler alternative, a user with unwanted repository data can delete that whole copy of the repository and “git clone” it again.
To prevent this from happening again, we will modify the database driver to detect and only interpret responses that match the packet IDs sent by the database. On the application side, we will consolidate the connection pool management so that Active Record’s connection pooling will manage all connections. We are following this up by upgrading the application to a newer version of Rails that doesn’t suffer from the “connection reuse” problem.
We will continue to analyze the events surrounding this incident and use our investigation to improve the systems and processes that power GitHub. We consider the unauthorized exposure of even a single private repository to be a serious failure, and we sincerely apologize that this incident occurred.
We’re pleased to announce that version 2.0 of the GitHub Extension for Visual Studio is now available. You can install it directly from the Tools and Extensions gallery in Visual Studio, as well as from our releases page and our website.
This release allows you to list your existing pull requests and create new ones directly from Visual Studio. You can also create gists directly from your code, making it even easier to share your code and collaborate. It also includes a slew of other enhancements and fixes, available in our release notes.
As we focus our efforts on building workflows targeted towards maintainers and contributors, we’d love to hear your thoughts on how we can improve our tools. Let us know what works and what doesn’t and how to make your coding and collaboration workflows easier.