[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DSO-style FFI
Re: DSO-style FFI
Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:41:08 -0400
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)
>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:55:26 -0400 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> The problems I see are A) that it would be trivial to use such an
>>> interface to crash or subvert emacs from elisp,
SM> This is a fundamental property of anything that lets gives access to
SM> "any" library. DSO or FFI is in the same boat. IOW, if we really
SM> consider it as too dangerous, then we can't provide anything related to
SM> an FFI or dynamic loading of code.
> This is where package signing becomes important. We can require two
> signatures from two separate reviewers for high-risk packages.
>>> and B) that such a binding will allow people to write non-free
>>> extensions to Emacs in just the way that RMS has specifically stated
>>> that he would like to avoid.
SM> Presumably we can prevent it by checking (before loading the library)
SM> that the library is compatible with the GPL (following the scheme
SM> designed originally for gcc).
> This can be declared by the author in the packaging. Do we need to spend
> time on an elaborate scheme that can be trivially subverted? Or are
> there other concerns I'm not getting?
- Re: DSO-style FFI, (continued)
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/08
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/08
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Michael Welsh Duggan, 2013/10/12
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/12
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/14
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Ted Zlatanov, 2013/10/18
- Re: DSO-style FFI,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/19
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Andy Moreton, 2013/10/19
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Ted Zlatanov, 2013/10/19
- Re: DSO-style FFI, Ted Zlatanov, 2013/10/08