[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [POLL] We plan to remove #+LINK: ...%(my-function) placeholder from
From: |
Steven Allen |
Subject: |
Re: [POLL] We plan to remove #+LINK: ...%(my-function) placeholder from link abbreviation spec |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:16:35 -0700 |
Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com> writes:
> Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com> writes:
>
>> The concern is that, e.g., there may b a function _marked_ as pure
>> that's not actually pure, leaks some information, and/or has a
>> security vulnerability (e.g., a C function exposed to lisp that's
>> marked as pure but internally has, e.g., a buffer overflow).
>
> Are there any functions marked as pure, by default?
>
Yes. Any function that starts with:
(declare (pure t) ...
This flag was introduced to allow the byte/native compiler to better
optimize calls to pure functions. It's used here because "pure"
functions should be safe to call.
- Assigned: CVE-2024-39331 (was: [ANN] Emergency bugfix release: Org mode 9.7.5), (continued)
[POLL] Bug of Feature? Attack vector via deceiving link abbrevs (was: [ANN] Emergency bugfix release: Org mode 9.7.5), Ihor Radchenko, 2024/06/28