"Eric Schulte" writes: > Hi Carsten, Matt, Scott, > > Carsten Dominik writes: > >> Hi Matt, hi Eric, >> >> Matt, thanks a lot for bringing this up. This is indeed a very >> important and serious issue. We need to address it. We need to >> step back and reconsider this carefully. >> >> Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that Org Babel should give >> you enough rope to hang yourself. But we have to make sure that >> this will not happen to a happy and unsuspecting Org mode, or even >> an unsuspecting Emacs user who by chance opens a file with extension >> .org. >> >> I remember very well when first realized that shell links could >> really affect you badly. It scared me. >> >> You main proposal was to make Org Babel an optional module. >> This will not solve the problem fully, I think, because we also >> don't want that people who turn it on automatically commit >> to potentially dangerous operations. There is a lot of good stuff >> in Babel which has nothing to do with code evaluation. >> >> Here is what I propose (several items are similar to what Eric proposes) >> >> 1. A new variable org-turn-on-babel. We can discuss the default. >> If it is nil, org-babel should not be loaded. >> A default of t would be fine with me if we implement other >> measures listed below. >> > > This sounds like a good idea to me, and it should address Matt's desire > for enabling minimal Org-mode installs. I would like this to default to > t, so that new users can try out Org-babel without overmuch effort. > >> >> 2. As Eric proposes, a variable similar to org-confirm-shell-link- >> function >> This should by default query for confirmation on any org-babel >> code execution, and can be configured to shut up by people who know >> what they are doing. >> > > Sounds good, I think this is a reasonable safety measure. > >> >> 3. Not loading emacs lisp evaluation by default. >> > > I would push back on this point. Largely because we have now crossed > the like to where it is impossible to play with a code block w/o first > dropping down to your configuration files, and evaluating require > statements. > >> >> 4. A new key in the babel keymap for org-babel-execute-code-block, >> for example `C-c C-v e'. This should be documented as the default >> key for this operation. >> > > Hmm, I'm less enthusiastic about this point and point 5. I really like > how 'C-c C-c' naturally does whatever-I-want given the context in which > it's called, and I wouldn't want to lose that intuitiveness. Similarly > 'C-c C-o' currently opens the results of a code block, I also find this > very appealing as it allows for a uniform top-level interface across an > Org-mode document, be it a code block or a link. > > Here are my reasons why I think leaving this keybinding is safe. > > 1) Unlike with shell/elisp links, the contents of code blocks is almost > always visible right under the user's point. So it is less likely to > evaluate something w/o having any idea what you are evaluating. > > 2) Adding a protection variable (e.g. org-confirm-babel-eval) means that > the only users who could potentially evaluate a code block with a > slip of the fingers would be users who have explicitly said that they > want to be able to easily run code blocks without confirmation. > > 3) Emacs exposes a number of entry points into code evaluation. M-! > allows users to run shell commands, C-M-x evaluate the elisp at > point, and these have not caused problems in the past. > >> >> 5. Removing org-babel-execute-code-block from `C-c C-c'. Inclusion >> should be optional. >> >> 6. A section in the manual on code execution and associated security >> risks in Org mode. This is not only about babel, but also about >> org-eval, org-eval-light, shell links and elisp links. I have meant >> to write this section for a long time and would be willing to >> draft it. We could then refer to this section from a couple of >> places in the docs, without cluttering the docs with disclaimers. >> > > This sounds like a very good idea. I'd be happy to help write such a > section. > >> >> The reason for 4 and 5 is that I believe Org-mode users are trained >> to blindly press `C-c C-c' whenever they want to update something at >> point. Matt's example of a blog post about `rm -rf' is a very >> realistic example for bad code being evaluated by mistake, not even >> due to malicious cations. I belive that a special key for this >> action would gove a good measure of protection. >> > > As I mentioned, I personally feel that an org-confirm-babel-eval > variable is sufficient protection. I think it's safe to assume that if > a user has explicitly customized that variable, then they know what > they're doing and trust themselves to execute code responsibly. I think > it's likely that the casual Org-babel user would never customize this > variable, which seems to me entirely appropriate. > >> >> This is what I think - please let me know if you think I am overdoing >> it. >> > > So to summarize, I think that the combination of (1), (2) and (6), > should be sufficient to protect users from accidental code evaluation. > Please let me know what you think, I am of course looking to compromise > and I fully understand that the general consensus may be that we need > more layers of protection. > > Best -- Eric > >> >> - Carsten >> >> >> On Jun 29, 2010, at 8:23 PM, Matt Lundin wrote: >> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> Thanks again for all the work that you, Dan, and Tom have put into >>> org-babel. I'm glad to see it become part of org-mode! >>> >>> "Eric Schulte" writes: >>> >>>> 2) Babel will now be loaded by default along with the rest of Org- >>>> mode. >>>> This means that *everyone* currently using babel will need to >>>> change >>>> their Emacs config and remove the (require 'org-babel-int) and/or >>>> (require 'org-babel) lines. >>> >>> I would like to request that org-babel be made an optional module. I >>> ask >>> this as someone who uses org-babel regularly. Here are my reasons: >>> >>> - Org-babel adds rather specific and complex functionality to org- >>> mode >>> that those who use it as a simple outliner and todo manager do not >>> require. (In other words, an option to turn it off might be nice >>> for >>> those who are worried about "feature creep.") >>> >>> - Org-babel increases the risk of accidentally executing malicious or >>> dangerous code when typing C-c C-c on a src block or exporting a >>> file. Perhaps users should activate it only after they understand >>> the risks. >>> >>> + For instance, I might write a blog post warning about the dangers >>> of typing "rm -rf ~/". If I put this between #+begin_src sh >>> and #+end_src and unthinkingly hit C-c C-c, I would be in >>> trouble. >>> I believe this is the reason for the variables >>> org-confirm-shell-link-function and >>> org-confirm-elisp-link-function. >>> >>> + This is admitted a bit far-fetched as an example, as it would >>> require one to have loaded ob-sh.el. But since elisp execution is >>> activated by default, there remain opportunities for unwittingly >>> executing code that is meant for other purposes (e.g., warnings, >>> examples, etc.). >>> >>>> Support for evaluating emacs-lisp code blocks is loaded by default. >>>> All other languages will need to be required explicitly. To >>>> conform >>>> to Emacs filename specifications all language require lines have >>>> been >>>> shortened from e.g. >>>> >>>> (require 'org-babel-sh) >>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> (require 'ob-sh) >>> >>> When I run make clean && make && make install I find that the language >>> directory is not installed. Does the langs directory require a manual >>> installation? >>> >>> Also, with make install, the ob-* files are installed on the same >>> level >>> as the org-files, yet lines 108-114 in org.el indicate that they >>> should >>> be installed in a babel subdirectory. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Matt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list >>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. >>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org >>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode >> >> - Carsten