GPG not using correct UID #3257

@crabctrl commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2019):

My key fingerprint is 0E72F749E5D4E92F1F1D5F2BCDAD63AE9DA934BE, the actual key is:

@crabctrl commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2019): My key fingerprint is `0E72F749E5D4E92F1F1D5F2BCDAD63AE9DA934BE`, the actual key is: ``` -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mDMEXHmwNRYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdADJQJlOscbuBH+CyJC9GVm3kKBD0Az8Ew7yqy MzQgwDm0KUFsZGVuIFBlZXRlcnMgPGFsZGVuLnBlZXRlcnNAbGVhZ3VlaC54eXo+ iJkEExYIAEECGwMFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4ACGQEWIQQOcvdJ5dTp Lx8dXyvNrWOunak0vgUCXMMqvAUJAkujhwAKCRDNrWOunak0vn92AQDmkeyYEmlx cHrnnCJAHub3aq0/M960vqYKX+mpgXuapwD+LEEdQ1LDg+hmzaNsgF+JRI/GeRE+ NpH02rJydqnPmgOIjwQTFggAOBYhBA5y90nl1OkvHx1fK82tY66dqTS+BQJcwhFN AhsDBQsJCAcCBhUKCQgLAgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEM2tY66dqTS+508A+MZsy+wH LD5gzke8keuZtsQwE4181PUN2YKr0pPQcJIBALHD2DIa0Zq91NiFRUq7wc8Bogsu 8ya4cjUZPf9RcdUBtCZBbGRlbiBQZWV0ZXJzIDxhbGRlbkBvcGVuZm9ydHJlc3Mu eHl6PoiYBDAWCABAFiEEDnL3SeXU6S8fHV8rza1jrp2pNL4FAlzCEWUiHSBObyBs b25nZXIgb3duIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzcwAKCRDNrWOunak0vsBhAP9ZxNlQ q4ibb04LxQIwijK9brNge8Jqu2LInmcs0VXa9QD+JdkhYtRcFLXDyQi03uuAUa4y hTYQvgeqP9EBllNbCwSIkAQTFggAOBYhBA5y90nl1OkvHx1fK82tY66dqTS+BQJc ebA1AhsDBQsJCAcCBhUKCQgLAgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEM2tY66dqTS+Rq4A/Az/ HkAVEFaIVR/E/IyfWpp30jhmior9iorrwR5zJcIXAQCqPRG7bKSv4t0M25z7MzGe z4A8ru/O/2BWGbz3DwFoDrg4BFx5sDUSCisGAQQBl1UBBQEBB0C6aNJqaSPLAVVg puuvK645awUD42NBnO863AVf23aXOgMBCAeIfgQYFggAJgIbDBYhBA5y90nl1Okv Hx1fK82tY66dqTS+BQJcwyr7BQkCS6PGAAoJEM2tY66dqTS+J24BAJQE59jBQFwH OYRCigOJJVsWWNs35TilZ1xaxs8mnDjHAQDo18Q/Uw1zBPH2Mr5LRAbQwnwoVwgU FkzJRllII58iAA== =SS9a -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ```

GiteaMirror commented

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 28, 2019):

~~Looking at your public key, the old UID is still the primary UID.~~ It would need to check what identities is returned in from this keys where we search for matching emails. e83dddbd8c/models/gpg_key.go (L276)

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 28, 2019): ~Looking at your public key, the old UID is still the primary UID.~ It would need to check what identities is returned in from this keys where we search for matching emails. https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/e83dddbd8cbf9fcad8c177b58aec5f889c1d928e/models/gpg_key.go#L276

GiteaMirror commented

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2019):

I added a test to debug, and I seems to get both emails listed so it should match at least your new email. I need to look further to find the mismatch.

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2019): I added a test to debug, and I seems to get both emails listed so it should match at least your new email. I need to look further to find the mismatch.

GiteaMirror commented

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2019):

Maybe we should update the lib: 2c2b8311ae (diff-e7ace1eeeac9cdf4f5fe331bf53e3fb2)

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2019): Maybe we should update the lib: https://github.com/keybase/go-crypto/commit/2c2b8311ae1ea6931831c30d113bc2b818d4696f#diff-e7ace1eeeac9cdf4f5fe331bf53e3fb2

GiteaMirror commented

@xf- commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2019):

I use also multiple mail addresses in my key and commit with different once (work, private...).
@sapk you only look into loading issue of primary and not to load all UIDs or?

@xf- commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2019): I use also multiple mail addresses in my key and commit with different once (work, private...). @sapk you only look into loading issue of primary and not to load all UIDs or?

GiteaMirror commented

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2019):

@xf- We load all identities that are linked to the key. The problem here is that an identities is revoked in the key export and the lib we use still list it as a good identities. In fact if I recall well my testing, it doesn't even match/return the revocation.

@sapk commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2019): @xf- We load all identities that are linked to the key. The problem here is that an identities is revoked in the key export and the lib we use still list it as a good identities. In fact if I recall well my testing, it doesn't even match/return the revocation.

GiteaMirror commented

@xf- commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2019):

@sapk deleted the key and imported it again. Now it works! THX

@xf- commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2019): @sapk deleted the key and imported it again. Now it works! THX

GiteaMirror commented

@crabctrl commented on GitHub (May 5, 2019):

Is something still needed from me? (I only ask because of the label)

@crabctrl commented on GitHub (May 5, 2019): Is something still needed from me? (I only ask because of the label)

GiteaMirror commented

@sapk commented on GitHub (May 5, 2019):

@atoms118 No we have enough to reproduce (added as a test in #6794), To be fixed we would need to fix it in the lib we use that seems to list the identities of the revoked uid when it shouldn't (but doesn't list revoked uid for the key listed in there tests 😕). I haven't look futhermore.

@sapk commented on GitHub (May 5, 2019): @atoms118 No we have enough to reproduce (added as a test in #6794), To be fixed we would need to fix it in the lib we use that seems to list the identities of the revoked uid when it shouldn't (but doesn't list revoked uid for the key listed in there tests :confused:). I haven't look futhermore.

GiteaMirror commented

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2019):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs during the next 2 weeks. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2019): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs during the next 2 weeks. Thank you for your contributions.

GiteaMirror commented

@sapk commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2019):

This issue need to be kept open.

@sapk commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2019): This issue need to be kept open.

GiteaMirror commented

@zeripath commented on GitHub (Aug 13, 2020):

I am suspicious that this might have been resolved by #12155

@zeripath commented on GitHub (Aug 13, 2020): I am suspicious that this might have been resolved by #12155

GiteaMirror commented