provide option in split-gpg to show exactly what task is requested

[unman]

The problem you're addressing (if any)
split-gpg allows access for a defined time, and all requests in that time period are approved.

Describe the solution you'd like
Provide an option to set the gpg-split to approve a specific task only

Lets say I write an email to [email protected]. I click Send and I get a message asking me "would you like to encrypt/sign the message for [email protected] with your key ABC....?"
In this way I am restricting the comms in between the AppVMs for a single, specific task only.

Where is the value to a user, and who might that user be?
Provides greater control over precise task that gpg-split provides.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context
Raised by scurge1tl on qubes-users

Relevant documentation you've consulted
https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/split-gpg

Related, non-duplicate issues
Non duplicate:
#1835
#2443

[marmarek]

The current architecture of split-gpg doesn't allow to do that reliably, as there are many options that can influence the action. There is a great potential of de-synchronizing such options handling that potentially could allow bypassing the policy. On the other hand, there is work-in-progress new implementation, based on gpg agent protocol, that allows exactly this. It's here: https://github.com/hw42/qubes-app-linux-split-gpg2/ Tracking issue: #474 Based on the above, I think this is a duplicate of #474 BTW Encrypting message doesn't need access to private key, so it doesn't need to even go through key-holding VM. Thus, in your example, you'll be asked only about signing, as this is the only action there requiring access to the private key.

…

-- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[andrewdavidwong]

Based on the above, I think this is a duplicate of #474

Closing as a duplicate of #474. If you believe this is not really a duplicate, please leave a comment briefly explaining why. We'll be happy to take another look and, if appropriate, reopen this issue. Thank you.