From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA package submission: buffer-env Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:58:48 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87sfs2u8jh.fsf@gmail.com> <87h78iu5qu.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11442"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Augusto Stoffel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 28 20:59:35 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nOmBC-0002lw-R4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 20:59:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58866 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOmBB-0004VQ-CM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:59:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45148) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOmAc-0003qK-BM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:58:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:46917) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nOmAW-0004es-TP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:58:57 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2BB86100189; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:58:51 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B6AE6100054; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:58:49 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1646078329; bh=isTFtCV+T/XYNGn8qqlF1z50P8+8tZkpIuKLG7xzkfY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HvcHMOFAygo13H+EFmGGkOBrKiDTDdfMeqHmdowY2UOpwZ4zg3nVYcMsNLgR7S4YC OwQ6WKCdnCzkCrMXBARqUJ8tR/3u4X91DdXV0/5gYgUHOgwx51CUwqXebhE2drCPhP bLISWjy8lQVK7dWtNSbSd7T6UhK3FcNQYPh0gD1vc0q/L4pKuo2EjgqqjLFeOLuRUL 5FH5rF6VaneoXEoncNBfrb4+lo8Z4Cpic5iMIABBVgmpOtUE6fLP3yNKhYRJadUDk9 0bGHSQrA86uq+ryR5l/Bl4FTN2lhTXJjAkkdILGOEI5eU0CvEw/8sHsDlzrYaA3NW3 KH8vv7NFQfGXA== Original-Received: from ceviche (unknown [45.72.208.76]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85B10120EAC; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:58:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87h78iu5qu.fsf@gmail.com> (Augusto Stoffel's message of "Mon, 28 Feb 2022 20:54:17 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:286737 Archived-At: Augusto Stoffel [2022-02-28 20:54:17] wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> The default value for `buffer-env-command` is a gaping security hole, tho. >> Any hope we can make this a bit less dangerous? > I think it's already made sufficiently tame: before running any given > version of an .envrc script, you have to explicitly say yes. Then a > hash of the script contents is saved in a custom variable, so the second > time you run the same script you don't need to confirm. Ah, sorry, I missed this detail. Good, thanks, Stefan