bug#66279: closed (Unexporting <user-account>)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 05 Oct 2023 23:28:49 +0200
with message-id <87h6n421ym.fsf@gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#66279: Unexporting <user-account>
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #66279,
regarding Unexporting <user-account>
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
66279: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66279
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Unexporting <user-account>
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:10:51 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Commit 03795e2ba27424fc98957da00f6c71325e7ae425 exports the
> <user-account> record type descriptor (RTD).
>
> Common practice is to keep RTDs private because by publishing them, we
> make it harder to change the ABI (because users might be matching fields
> positionally) and we make it trivial for users to forge records of that
> type, bypassing any checks we may have in the official constructor (such
> as “sanitizers”).
>
> What do you think of reverting this commit?  I don’t see references to
> <user-account> outside of its module.
>
> (I’m aware there are a few other places where RTDs are exported; I think
> we should eventually fix them as well.)
>
> Ludo’.
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#66279: Unexporting <user-account>
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 05 Oct 2023 23:28:49 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> Hi Maxim,
> >>
> >> Commit 03795e2ba27424fc98957da00f6c71325e7ae425 exports the
> >> <user-account> record type descriptor (RTD).
> >>
> >> Common practice is to keep RTDs private because by publishing them, we
> >> make it harder to change the ABI (because users might be matching fields
> >> positionally) and we make it trivial for users to forge records of that
> >> type, bypassing any checks we may have in the official constructor (such
> >> as “sanitizers”).
> >
> > Perhaps we should document this?  More power to the users!
>
> Done in commit 7b710836a1c7cb921f54ead64f465bcc5333d076, based on what I
> wrote above.
>
> >> What do you think of reverting this commit?  I don’t see references to
> >> <user-account> outside of its module.
> >
> > I'd like to note there are also valid usages requiring a record type,
> > such as 'match-record' from (guix records).  Otherwise, I don't feel
> > strongly about it, but if if's done I think the rationale you gave above
> > should be documented in our contributing guidelines.
>
> Alright, done as well in commit
> 97927608cb4f9c5d721115f1cb638de17ac38e62.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
>
> --- End Message ---