Hi divoplade, On +2020-10-24 08:17:47 +0200, divoplade wrote: > Hello, > > Le samedi 24 octobre 2020 à 01:32 +0200, Bengt Richter a écrit : > > An alternate solution could be programmed using ffi, as documented in > > [1], n'est-ce pas? > To be clear, you would rather have that function as guile code rather > than extending the C function? I'm OK with that, but in which file > should I put that function? My instinct was to put the code near the > mkdir function, and that happened to be in a C file, so I went C. > Seems logical, and probably where I'd go, but please be careful! Don't make a C version of this hack: ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ (define (my-mkdir-p path . ignore) (system (string-append "mkdir -p " path))) │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You can then write (my-mkdir-p "foo-dir/bar-dir") and it'll do the job.
But it's definitely safer to skip the hack and write ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │ (system "mkdir -p foo-dir/bar-dir") │ └─────────────────────────────────────┘ and not give anything a chance to inject something bad via unsanitized parameters. E.g., ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │ (my-mkdir-p "here/below;tree here") │ │ here │ │ └── below │ └─────────────────────────────────────┘ It does the intended, so no suspicous change in that part, and my-mkdir-p looks innocent enough. (Did you notice the danger? ;) Well, introducing something like this, but more subtle, could be the first move by a mole working for <insert favorite bogeyman organization> to compromise or disrupt/discredit GNU FLOSS competition. Is that unhappy thought too paranoid? I hope so, but I'm not convinced ;/ > > What would guix best-practice guidance say about that? > I'm not sure to follow, now this is a guile matter, guix has nothing to > do about it. I'm sorry I messed a few things up with the mailing lists > (I should have listened to them, "don't cross the streams"). Could you > elaborate? > Sorry, you are right: it does become a guile matter, but... ... it also becomes part of guix if it's part of the guile version a guix version depends on, so thereby it becomes a guix quality/security item to be careful about. So I was wondering whether guix architects have preferences for where and how a function should be implemented, all things considered. > Best regards, > > divoplade > -- Regards, Bengt Richter
