GNU bug report logs - #50960
[PATCH 00/10] Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 50960 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#50960] [PATCH 00/10] Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment'
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 17:08:51 +0200

On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 03:40:00PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de> skribis:
> > On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 12:21:16PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >> 2. ‘guix shell’, without arguments, loads ‘guix.scm’ or ‘manifest.scm’
> >>    from the current directory or one of its ancestors.
> > This however is concerning.  Users will not expect guix to execute
> > arbitrary code.  Maybe print a suggestion to maybe --file the file
> > instead.
> I think it’s fine as long as, as in the case of ‘haunt build’ or ‘make’
> or ‘git’, it’s properly documented.  Also, ‘guix shell’ unconditionally
> writes a message.

Let’s say I have downloaded undesirable code to a file
/home/florian/Downloads/guix.scm and am hacking on source code in
/home/florian/Downloads/something/ where I run `guix shell`, but
/home/florian/Downloads/something/ does not in fact contain a
guix.scm file.  Now I’d have accidentally run the other guix.scm.

Also `make` is typically used without arguments, but a novice `guix
shell` user might know `guix shell program-a program-b` but is
surprised when running `guix shell` without arguments in an untrusted
directory.

But yes, git hooks are dangerous too.

Regards,
Florian

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.