[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: risky local variable mechanism
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: risky local variable mechanism |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:29:28 -0500 |
It's unlikely that making the file local variable mechanism stricter,
while keeping unsafep.el the same, will open up new security holes
that didn't already exist. Anyway, it is pretty easy to change
unsafep.el to reflect the changes to files.el.
Could you take a look at doing that? It may not be quite trivial.
In particular, the fact that unsafep checks for functions
could make some things safe, which otherwise would not be.
- safe-local-variable additions (was: Risky local variable mechanism), (continued)
Re: Risky local variable mechanism, LENNART BORGMAN, 2006/02/02
re: risky local variable mechanism, Jonathan Yavner, 2006/02/10
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/10
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/11
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Jonathan Yavner, 2006/02/11
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/11
- Re: risky local variable mechanism,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/12
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/13
- Re: risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/13
Re: risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/11
Re: risky local variable mechanism, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/12