From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17127: `call-process' circumvents password concealment w/ `read-passwd' Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:49:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87ftjifjni.fsf@gnus.org> References: <871txntb60.fsf@nbtrap.com> <87y2y7gogl.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="126378"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Nathan Trapuzzano , 17127@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 24 15:27:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iNd9K-000Wjj-Ab for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:27:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42606 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iNd9I-0002tc-Af for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:27:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41864) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcy-0007so-6P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:50:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcw-0000y8-QB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:50:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54845) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcw-0000xs-EY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcw-0007Cs-B6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:50:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17127 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: fixed Original-Received: via spool by 17127-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17127.157191776727658 (code B ref 17127); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17127) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2019 11:49:27 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35433 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcN-0007C2-H3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:49:27 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:59960) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcM-0007Bv-NV for 17127@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:49:27 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iNbcH-00040L-Pr; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:49:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:01:45 -0400") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:170124 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> The following patch fixes this, I think, by using post-command-hook >> instead of after-change-functions. > > Actually, in theory after-change-functions should catch all cases > whereas post-command-hook might miss some (i.e. chars inserted not > while running a command, e.g. from a process filter). > > So while your new code probably works fine in practice (and is a good > workaround for now) , I think the original code is "more correct" and we > should try and figure out why it didn't work: how come > after-change-functions is not run (or not correctly) by call-process? Yeah, that's a good point. Data inserted by call-process definitely changes the buffer, so after-change-functions should be run. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no