From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: DSO-style FFI Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:31:28 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87eh7iogcv.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> References: <877gdqrc9u.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87mwmmp05f.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87fvsdpato.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <8738oc20xk.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87d2ngzlyl.fsf_-_@flea.lifelogs.com> <87siwcxda7.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87zjqjfz36.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87wqlitse5.fsf@maru2.md5i.com> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1382103095 17405 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2013 13:31:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:31:35 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 18 15:31:38 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VXA9R-0005QA-3A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:31:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57730 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXA9Q-0004mS-NN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:31:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXA9I-0004dv-QX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:31:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXA9C-0001yL-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:31:28 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57057) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXA9C-0001yG-Lz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:31:22 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VXA97-0005Eo-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:31:17 +0200 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:31:17 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:31:17 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LG//oHkA5tyUXKKzUOpLSGNCZVI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:164300 Archived-At: On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:55:26 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> The problems I see are A) that it would be trivial to use such an >> interface to crash or subvert emacs from elisp, SM> This is a fundamental property of anything that lets gives access to SM> "any" library. DSO or FFI is in the same boat. IOW, if we really SM> consider it as too dangerous, then we can't provide anything related to SM> an FFI or dynamic loading of code. This is where package signing becomes important. We can require two signatures from two separate reviewers for high-risk packages. >> and B) that such a binding will allow people to write non-free >> extensions to Emacs in just the way that RMS has specifically stated >> that he would like to avoid. SM> Presumably we can prevent it by checking (before loading the library) SM> that the library is compatible with the GPL (following the scheme SM> designed originally for gcc). This can be declared by the author in the packaging. Do we need to spend time on an elaborate scheme that can be trivially subverted? Or are there other concerns I'm not getting? Ted