Re: master c86995d07e9: Enable code block evaluation when generating .org manuals

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> It also introduced the fact that we run Lisp to produce documentation.
>
>> Subverting that
>> requires crafting documentation that causes the texinfo or org
>> handling code to misbehave. I doubt thatʼs impossible, given the
>> ingenuity of attackers, but enabling direct evaluation of emacs lisp
>> makes such subversion a whole lot easier.
>
> Adding that single setq on the command line means "direct evaluation
> of Emacs Lisp", whereas running Org code (in Emacs Lisp!) to produce
> the manuals does not?  What am I missing here?
>
>>     >> Anyway, the libxz episode shows that it seems to be easier to sneak
>>     >> malicious code "elsewhere" (in that case it was the test suite, but
>>     >> you get te idea).
>> 
>>     Eli> So you are saying that our co-maintainers are not to be trusted not to
>>     Eli> sneak such code into release tarballs?  That's quite an insult, I'd
>>     Eli> say.
>> 
>> Itʼs not a question of trust, nor an attack on maintainersʼ ability:
>> hiding such code from well-intentioned, skilled maintainers can and
>> has been done.
>
> So you are saying that we don't understand code that we review and
> approve for installing?
>
>>     Eli> Why is it that a crime perpetrated by some villain immediately causes
>>     Eli> people to suspect everyone around them to be capable of similar
>>     Eli> crimes?
>> 
>> Nobody is accusing maintainers of bad intentions.
>
> That's not the only interpretation of what's been said.  The reference
> to xz already speaks volumes about the attitude.
>
>> My point was merely
>> that we should think carefully about enabling such a feature.
>
> And you think I haven't when I installed the change?  Why would you
> think that?

100% agreement.