bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#51327: 28.0.60; emacsclient warns about XDG_RUNTIME_DIR when startin


From: Jim Porter
Subject: bug#51327: 28.0.60; emacsclient warns about XDG_RUNTIME_DIR when starting daemon on-demand
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 22:57:28 -0800

On 12/7/2021 11:03 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Ulrich says the loophole is small because Emacs verifies that the current user is the socket owner. However, small loopholes can still be exploited: for example, an attacker could cause you to think that you're connecting to your Emacs when you're really connecting to another of your processes, and this could still lead to problems (particularly if you're root).

While I understand that Ulrich's goal is for things to Just Work with Gentoo's app-emacs/emacs-daemon package (which puts the socket in $TMPDIR), it seems there's no way to get that without opening at least a small loophole.

When the user is guaranteed to be connecting to an Emacs daemon whose socket is in $TMPDIR, it's sufficient on Emacs 27 to just unset $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR first. However, from my discussion with Ulrich before[1], I believe one of the goals is to look in *both* places for a socket to be more flexible, as Emacs 28 currently does.

Doing that by default opens a loophole for all emacsclient users, but what about a command-line flag like `emacsclient --allow-tmpdir-loophole' and/or an environment variable like `EMACS_ALLOW_TMPDIR_LOOPHOLE=1 emacsclient' (with a better name, of course)? Then, the default behavior would be free of loopholes[2], but Ulrich's case could be achieved by passing that flag when calling emacsclient. It might even be possible for Gentoo to enable that for the user in the appropriate cases...

That's not as user-/distro-friendly as things just working automatically, but maybe it would be a decent compromise? Of course, if the loophole is small enough, maybe the current behavior in Emacs 28 is ok (aside from the warning message). I'm not an expert on the security implications though, so I don't have a strong opinion on which way to go here.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-11/msg00435.html
[2] Well, *known* loopholes...





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]