I would argue for deleting that code. A flag for el_set which *allows it* might work for me, but I anticipate this is a crazy feature that programs using the library would not expect, and the risks of abuse are clear.
Leon Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > The editline(7) library has a little known feature: vi-histedit. > When invoked, the command creates a file in /tmp and spawns vi(1) to > edit it. This behavior is unaccounted for in the pledge(2) promises of > bc(1) and fsdb(8). > > Steps to reproduce: > $ echo "bind -v" >> ~/.editrc > $ bc > <Press "ESC", then "v"> > Abort trap (core dumped) > > Adding "rpath wpath cpath proc exec" to their pledge(2) promises is just > too much to fix this. Should vi-histedit be removed completely? Or > should another flag be added to el_set(3) that disables it on demand, > such that other programs can still use it if their pledge(2) permits it? > > The other editline(7) users, bgplgsh(8), cdio(1), ftp(1) and sftp(1) are > not affected because they're not pledged at that point. > > By the way, sftp(1) ignores "bind -v" if it is set in ~/.editrc but > works with other commands (e.g. "telltc"). I don't know what's going on > there, someone more capable should check it out. >
