Re: DSO-style FFI

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:55:26 -0400 Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> 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