Absolute paths work. But this is really unsatisfactory IMO. I develop code in
modules and do so in many directories. It would be quite painful to just use
absolute paths.
I don't see what the big security thread is. If really a problem, why does
guile allow relative paths?
For comparison, Python will load modules in the current directory.
Nonetheless, I think "." is breaking the traceback with the "./" being added on
reload. When I was using "." I wasn't getting file, line information in
tracebacks. Now, without GUILE_LOAD_PATH set to ":$HOME/opt/guile" I get
traceback info for modules in my current directory.
I think the following may be a candidate fix?
code is from guile-2.0.11, in file boot-9.scm, near line 1683:
(define (in-vicinity vicinity file)
(let ((tail (let ((len (string-length vicinity)))
(if (zero? len)
#f
(string-ref vicinity (- len 1))))))
(string-append vicinity
(if (or (not tail) (file-name-separator? tail))
""
file-name-separator-string)
file)))
;; FIX?
(define (new-in-vicinity vicinity file)
(let ((tail (let ((len (string-length vicinity)))
(if (or (zero? len) (string=? "." vicinity))
#f
(string-ref vicinity (- len 1))))))
(string-append vicinity
(if (or (not tail) (file-name-separator? tail))
""
file-name-separator-string)
file)))
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Matt Wette <mwe...@alumni.caltech.edu> skribis:
>
>> 1) I found that this problem persists across restarts of guile. I have been
>> debugging a module in current dir and I am seeing the path extend an extra
>> "./" every time I type ",reload (lalr1).
>>
>> 2) My environment includes
>> GUILE_LOAD_PATH=.:/Users/mwette/opt/guile
>
> The problem stems from the ‘.’ entry in the search path. On one hand
> this is perfectly valid; on the other hand, it’s usually frowned upon,
> because you may end up executing possibly malicious code that just
> happens to be in $PWD.
>
> All in all, I recommend using only absolute directory names in the
> search paths, which will also solve the initial problem.
>
> Can you confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
