From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kyle Meyer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master c86995d07e9: Enable code block evaluation when generating .org manuals Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 22:39:28 -0400 Message-ID: <87sexplbmn.fsf@kyleam.com> References: <171767737644.19678.784876979840850798@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20240606123616.DE7C9C1F9EF@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87h6e6i1mg.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19766"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Ihor Radchenko To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 07 04:40:38 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sFPWv-0004rg-Hg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2024 04:40:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sFPW4-0008I4-OA; Thu, 06 Jun 2024 22:39:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sFPW3-0008Hb-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2024 22:39:43 -0400 Original-Received: from out-186.mta0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:1004:224b::ba]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sFPVz-00015U-Ek for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2024 22:39:42 -0400 X-Envelope-To: rpluim@gmail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kyleam.com; s=key1; t=1717727972; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=m9kiPqZ/udIR+TMasgGFqOVfJDQhCmqmH+3s7eAGp9w=; b=IQyCkV+HJM2Lt6eMXja4q6SkMg//F7Sqy3hEgqCmOcoMfRtHuHNUiX/PBHDLQQrnUDFigM M+RLcflx/WRwfZaWWgdmPooxfpyRBWjcnkMdbnv9uwwiYSKLSPJpf0IrpVZUEWpjB3soev DuHKN3syAJHktjco0bxtkDEAHQ92fwtewZMxwztDTpDsNZ7XM8zqWuCpIMS8nUC5GvTKOs VAxRLC0EfnQoUZHn8iIQ43EnB3PbBpNAxj+ytO85xlC07U9h7C9Q5NbAZylDDYHYN/bmDI o3LRRktDqDUISWBm2Gfr95/kXbyulGz+chBUhWJ2ou4ARpBB7TNtavr119M5Lg== X-Envelope-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Envelope-To: yantar92@posteo.net X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. In-Reply-To: <87h6e6i1mg.fsf@gmail.com> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:41d0:1004:224b::ba; envelope-from=kyle@kyleam.com; helo=out-186.mta0.migadu.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:319857 Archived-At: Robert Pluim writes: > This has set off my paranoia alarm. So anyone that manages to > sneak malicious emacs lisp code into the org manual gets to run that > code on the machines of everyone who builds emacs from source? Yes. > (I know, I know, we already run emacs lisp code during the build. But > it comes from .el files, generally, not documentation). I understand. As mentioned by Ihor (+cc) in bug#71394, this change is needed before syncing the latest Org release to the Emacs tree due to Org's 715148131 (org-manual: Automatically generate export option list, 2023-07-31). That's not an argument that the Emacs side should accept this change. But if not, we'll need to adjust things on Org's end.