From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:23:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20080819102354.GA5137@muc.de> References: <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87vdxx9a5k.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219141808 15170 80.91.229.12 (19 Aug 2008 10:30:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Johannes Weiner Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 19 12:31:00 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KVOUO-0005t5-1J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:31:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48892 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KVOTP-0006py-4Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:29:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KVOL3-0004d6-DQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:21:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KVOL2-0004cC-1q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:21:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36626 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KVOL1-0004bZ-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:21:19 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1314 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KVOL0-0008A0-SD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:21:19 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 88651 invoked by uid 3782); 19 Aug 2008 10:21:12 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E527DD.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.39.221]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:21:10 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 6560 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Aug 2008 10:23:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vdxx9a5k.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102637 Archived-At: Hi, Johannes! On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:27:19AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi, > Alan Mackenzie writes: > >> And what is the difference between an Emacs that calls non-free code > >> via a binary module, and an Emacs that accesses files via TRAMP and > >> non-free SSH? > > The ability of a binary module to disable `defun' and prevent all but > > digitally signed code from being loaded. > How about fset'ing defun to something new? > You still have not answered to what I said yesterday: This > microsoft8.dll `functionality' does not in any way rely on the feature > proposed here. I suppose not, strictly speaking. From a publicity point of view, using a Lisp library to disable Lisp is much more blatantly wrong than using a binary "to enhance the security of an otherwise complete working system". It would be easier (technically, and probably legally, too) to remove the nastiness from a .elc file than a .dll one, whilst still leaving positive features working. > And if you would want to do Bad Things, what prevents you from calling a > non-free binary with Emacs' process interface? You mean getting other people to call your non-free binary, I think. The fact that it's a process-level interface prevents the binary from doing much damage to the guts of Emacs. Doesn't it? > See, I really believe in your points that this feature has the > potential to be abused. But to me it is not obvious how it would open > a _extra_ possibilities besides doing it more technically advanced. > The libotr bindings I have in mind would also work with the process > model. Just hack up an executable that can be controlled by > command-line arguments to wire up your elisp stuff with libotr. How much more does the libotr library need than writing to its stdin and reading from its stdout? [ .... ] > But I have no way right now to implement pluggable bindings in a sane > way that I would consider better than an ugly hack. OK. > Hannes -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).