bug#64423: 29.0.92; save-interprogram-paste-before-kill doesn't prevent streaming large selections

[Po Lu via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]

sbaugh@catern.com writes:

> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com> writes:
>>
>>> When you do that, you interrupt the operation which is trying to add a
>>> new kill.  If you interrupt it and try again, you'll just get the same
>>> long delay again.  There's no way to mitigate this from within Emacs,
>>> other than by turning off save-interprogram-paste-before-kill.
>>
>> Then I guess the solution is to temporarily disable
>> `save-interprogram-paste-before-kill' if a quit arrives while it is
>> reading selection data.
>
> That would be a decent solution.  Although I'm not sure how we'd
> implement it.  We want to, somehow, know that after a selection-transfer
> has been aborted, we should not try to transfer that selection again.
> Is that something we can check?  Whether the selection has changed,
> without transferring it?

Emacs will probably assert ownership of the selection after the kill
takes place, anyway, so there is no need.

> That is unfortunate.  That seems like a terrible omission...  An
> important network protocol principle is "tell the client up front how
> much data you are going to send"...

It's an intentional omission: INCR data transfer is designed to work
even if the owner itself does not know much data will be sent.  For
example, if the selection data is being transferred from a pipe or
socket.

> Anyway, there's still a possible solution: we could return control to
> the user if the transfer is too large, and continue with the INCR
> transfer in the background, just to satisfy this ICCCM requirement,
> discarding the data as we receive it.  This would be straightforward in
> a program with a normal event loop, but might be difficult in Emacs...

It's straightforward in Emacs, since that's already how it responds to
selection requests from other clients.  But it's a bad idea: what if the
user requests another conversion from the same selection owner while the
transfer is in progress?  This is technically possible, but will need
Emacs to specify a different property in each ConvertSelection request,
which will lead to lots of needless InternAtom requests and round
trips...

> If the round-trip latency is 500ms, then waiting for the first quantum
> of selection data will take at least 500ms, yes.  Subsequent quanta will
> also take at least 500ms each.  If the selection is large, there may be
> many.  If there are 20, then kill-new will take 10 seconds.  But if we
> can limit the amount of selection data transferred, kill-new will only
> take 500ms.
>
> Wait... am I missing something?  You're saying it's okay for the user to
> interactively choose to interrupt an INCR transfer, even though that
> will leave things in a bad state?

Yes, because when the user choses to do so, it is already clear that
there is a problem with the selection owner.  Transferring a lot of data
is not a capital offense, and Emacs shouldn't condemn the selection
owner just because it does.

> Couldn't we just do the same thing in code, then?  Can we wrap a
> user-customizable with-timeout around gui-get-selection?
>
> I actually agree now: limiting the amount of data transferred makes no
> sense for user experience.  But limiting the *time spent* transferring
> data makes total sense!  Users are able to do that today: We should
> allow users to automate that!
>
> So I think some new save-interprogram-paste-before-kill-timeout variable
> would work perfectly.  All it would do is something users are already
> capable of doing, but without aborting the entire kill-new operation.
> That seems perfect!

You mean, x-selection-timeout?