"J.P." writes: > Akib Azmain Turja writes: > >> Why the closure doesn't capture "s"? For me, the following code >> captures "s" (obviously with lexical binding): (just let-wrapped version >> of your code) >> >> (let ((e '(:secret "topsecret"))) >> (when-let* ((s (plist-get e :secret)) ; s not captured by closure >> (v (auth-source--obfuscate s))) >> (setf (plist-get e :secret) >> (lambda () (auth-source--deobfuscate v)))) >> e) >> ;; => (:secret >> ;; (closure >> ;; ((p #1) >> ;; (v . "XIcHKKIKtavKgK8J6zXP1w==-N/XAaAOqAtGcCzKGKX71og==") >> ;; (s . "topsecret") ;; LEAKED!!! >> ;; (e :secret #1) >> ;; t) >> ;; nil >> ;; (auth-source--deobfuscate v))) >> > > Looks like you don't have: > > commit 1b1ffe07897ebe06cf96ab423fad3cde9fd6c981 > Author: Stefan Monnier > Date: Mon Oct 17 17:11:40 2022 -0400 > > (Ffunction): Make interpreted closures safe for space > > It's easiest to just make a habit of applying patches on the latest > HEAD. Once you do, you'll find that the output of your example changes. > If ELPA's Compat ever takes an interest, I suppose a backported version > could just `byte-compile' the lambda. That's a recent commit, I'm using Emacs from a commit over two months ago (I tried to upgrade just a few days before Eglot merged, but was forced to revert due to native compilation errors). > >>> + (push e out))))) >> >> [...] >> >>> +(defun auth-source-pass--retrieve-parsed (seen path port-number-p) >>> + (when-let ((m (string-match auth-source-pass--match-regexp path))) >> >> Why do you let-bound "m"? > > Because I am slow and blind, I guess. > >> I can't find any use of it in the body. > > Go figure. (Thanks.) I can't find any existence of "m". > >>> +(defun auth-source-pass--find-match-many (hosts users ports require max) >>> + "Return plists for valid combinations of HOSTS, USERS, PORTS. >>> +Each plist contains, at the very least, a host and a secret." >>> + (let ((seen (make-hash-table :test #'equal)) >>> + (entries (auth-source-pass-entries)) >>> + out) >>> + (catch 'done >>> + (dolist (host hosts out) >>> + (pcase-let ((`(,_ ,u ,p) (auth-source-pass--disambiguate host))) >>> + (unless (or (not (equal "443" p)) (string-prefix-p "https://" host)) >>> + (setq p nil)) >>> + (dolist (user (or users (list u))) >>> + (dolist (port (or ports (list p))) >>> + (dolist (e entries) >>> + (when-let* >>> + ((m (or (gethash e seen) (auth-source-pass--retrieve-parsed >>> + seen e (integerp port)))) >>> + ((equal host (plist-get m :host))) >>> + ((auth-source-pass--match-parts m :port port require)) >>> + ((auth-source-pass--match-parts m :user user require)) >>> + (parsed (auth-source-pass-parse-entry e)) >>> + ;; For now, ignore body-content pairs, if any, >>> + ;; from `auth-source-pass--parse-data'. >>> + (secret (or (auth-source-pass--get-attr 'secret parsed) >>> + (not (memq :secret require))))) >>> + (push >>> + `( :host ,host ; prefer user-provided :host over h >>> + ,@(and-let* ((u (plist-get m :user))) (list :user u)) >>> + ,@(and-let* ((p (plist-get m :port))) (list :port p)) >>> + ,@(and secret (not (eq secret t)) (list :secret secret))) >>> + out) >>> + (when (or (zerop (cl-decf max)) >>> + (null (setq entries (remove e entries)))) >> >> Remove will create a lot of garbage, e.g. (let ((x '(1 2 3 4 5))) >> (eq (remove 6 x) x)) and (let ((x '(1 2 3 4 5))) (eq (remove 1 x) >> (cdr x))) both returns nil. > > Since you're clearly aware that, for lists, `remove' just calls `delete' > on a shallow copy, how could (remove thing x) ever be eq to some nthcdr > of x so long as both are non-nil? > >> If you think delete is OK, go ahead and use it. If you think remove is >> better, keep it. Do whatever you think right. > > As I tried to explain in > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=58985#64 > > I think `delete' is safe in this situation, assuming of course that, for > ancient, core functions, the implementation can be construed as the de > facto interface. Based on your comments, you seem to agree with this > assumption, which seems only sane. I have thus reverted the change. > Any one contributing to core Emacs is almost certain more experienced that me, so they should ignore me if they wish. >> >>> + (throw 'done out))))))))))) >>> + >> >> [...] > > While I certainly welcome the assiduous scrutinizing of Emacs lisp > mechanics and technique (truly), I was mainly hoping that, as an avid > pass user, you would also help flesh out the precise effects of the > behavior introduced by these changes and hopefully share some insights > into how they might impact day-to-day usage for the typical pass user. > Granted, that necessarily involves applying these patches atop your > daily driver and living with them for a spell and, ideally, investing > some thought into imagining common usage patterns beyond your own (plus > any potentially problematic edge cases). If you have the energy to > devote to (perhaps just some of) these areas, it would really help move > this bug report forward. Thanks. > > > > Actually, I'm not very brave, and any damage to my password-store would be an absolute disaster. However, I have made a backup and add the encrypted passwords to a Git repository, and since the patch looks safe, I'm going to apply and test it. -- Akib Azmain Turja, GPG key: 70018CE5819F17A3BBA666AFE74F0EFA922AE7F5 Fediverse: akib@hostux.social Codeberg: akib emailselfdefense.fsf.org | "Nothing can be secure without encryption."