Subject: Re: bug#21702: shell-quote-argument semantics and safety

From: [email-masked] (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:50:23 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> From: [email-masked] (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:22:16 +0200
>> 
>> > Like I said, this convention should be adopted project-wide.  Doing so
>> > only in a few doc strings, let alone one, will only confuse, because
>> > the user will not know whether the lack of such documentation means
>> > the API is safe or unsafe.
>> 
>> Yes, it should be done for every function for which the concerns I've
>> explained apply.  So let's start from this one.
>
> Before we start, we need a _decision_ to do that everywhere.  Then we
> could start doing that piecemeal.  Before the decision is made,
> there's no reason to make any such changes.

Given all the reasons I listed, I would expect that decision to be
obvious.

>> >> I would propose something along the lines of:
>> >> 
>> >>     It is guaranteed that ARGUMENT will be parsed as a single token by
>> >>     shells X, Y, and Z, as long as it is separated from other text via a
>> >>     delimiter in the syntax of the respective shell.
>> >
>> > I don't think we want to mention specific shells explicitly, because
>> > maintaining such a list would be a burden.  The standard shell of each
>> > OS is well defined and known to the users of the respective systems.
>> > Moreover, Emacs by default uses that shell automatically.
>> 
>> For instance: POSIX sh, MS-DOS, and Windows NT, is not a long list.
>
> This list doesn't name shells on DOS and Windows (there are several
> good candidates).  As for Posix, is it only sh?  What about Bash? what
> about zsh?
>
> You see, the moment you come up with a list such as above, people will
> start complaining that their favorite shell is not in the list, and
> the list will grow.  Then we will discover that some shells are not
> really compatible after all, etc. etc.  It's a maintenance burden we
> had better avoided.
>
> Saying "the standard shell" avoids all that nicely, because it refers
> to a single well-known shell.

Dash, Bash and (AFAIK all versions of) ksh are POSIX sh compliant.  Zsh
not unless when requested IIRC; in any case "POSIX sh" is well-defined.

My latest patch says "standard shells of MS-DOS and Windows NT."  Feel
free to improve that if necessary.

>> I don't understand what "a shell command doesn't need to be quoted to be
>> harmful" is supposed to mean
>
> Something like this:
>
>   rm -rf /*

What are you trying to say?  Of course an arbitrary shell command can do
anything.  The whole point of shell-quote-argument is to prevent a
string which is meant purely as an argument to a command to become
equivalent in power to an arbitrary shell command.

>> Here's a patch doing an improvement to the documentation like the one I
>> proposed.  Of course, if you have verified that shells other than POSIX
>> sh are fully safe, feel free to improve the docstring accordingly.
>
> Thanks.  However, like I said, I don't think this change would be
> correct, or needed.

I've explained the need for the change, and it is correct.

I don't understand why you're trying to make everything so difficult.
If for reasons unclear to me you absolutely refuse to accept these
improvements to shell-quote-argument's documentation, I will just
continue not using the function, because it cannot be trusted.

Taylan