-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix Visicut calling inkscape in an AppImage. #721
Open
jnweiger
wants to merge
5
commits into
t-oster:master
Choose a base branch
from
fablabnbg:master
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e435f2e
Fix Visicut calling inkscape in an AppImage.
jnweiger ab42570
Update tools/inkscape_extension/visicut_export.py
jnweiger 64f5e4f
Update tools/inkscape_extension/visicut_export.py
jnweiger 5bfbeef
rewritten as suggested
jnweiger 4a551e2
Ported the appimage patch to pathlib. Much nicer code and windows com…
jnweiger File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like this
os.access
check, it's very compact.pathlib
should have a shortcut for that.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe only checking is_file() alone is even more compact? An inkscape AppImage that has an 'AppRun' file which has no execute bits, or is mounted without exec, or suffering from a security policy, or whatever ... is out of scope here anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just failing silently is not the best idea. Your algorithm can still cross mountpoints (that's what the
is_mount
check was there for before) and I can imagine a bunch of false positive detections ofAppRun
s in that case. For instance, in some occasions, AppDirs can be integrated in each other (lazy approach but it works, I use that myself occasionally). In such a case, the execute bit on someAppRun
in the chain might not be set. Also, AppImages can be extracted and copied to devices that do not have the executable bit set, etc.The check is fine and it's good to have it. In fact, security wise, we should add the mountpoint check and abort once it's crossed. To do so, this should be appended to the
for
's body:Security (i.e., preventing critical issues) and safety (i.e., keeping users from experiencing weird behavior) always add a bit of verbosity to the code, but in the end, it's always worth it. We'd have some good reasons to throw exceptions here even. But that'd bloat this PR. I think in its current form, it's a reasonably solid implementation and I don't see any attack vector (without thinking about it for more than 5 minutes).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I found an
INKSCAPE_COMMAND
environment variable that seems to point to the AppRun file. Can you check if we can use this instead? First guess:This would avoid the potential problems.